Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL,

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 25th day of March, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Post Office (Sites) Bill.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Bootle, Canterbury, Ilford, Isle of The net, Llanelly, and Uxbridge," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

FINANCE.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I beg to be allowed to present a petition, signed by 27,000 persons, praying that a full and an impartial public inquiry be made into financial principles and policies and their effects on prices, taxation and employment.

NEW WHIT.

For the Universities of St. Andrew's, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, in the room of the Right Honourable Sir HENRY CRAIK, Baronet, K. C.B., deceased.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

APPEALS (EXPENSES).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he has received a resolution from the Middlesbrough War Pensions Committee in favour of full expenses being allowed in the case of all appeals against final awards recommended by local war pension committees; and what action he proposes taking?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I have received the resolution referred to. The proposal that, in addition to travelling expenses and subsistence allowance which are already paid to all appellants, further payment should be made in respect of compensation for loss of remunerative time in all cases recommended by war pensions committees would not be a matter primarily affecting my Department, but that of the Lord Chancellor, to whom I have forwarded a copy of the resolution. So far, however, as the proposal affects my Department, I may point out that its practical effect would be to make the war pension committee the normal channel of approach and, therefore, a court of first instance in all cases, notwithstanding that this position would be entirely outside their statutory functions and that they would not have the knowledge and experience necessary to deal with the cases.

Mr. LOOKER: Would not the granting of the request tend to increase greatly the number of appeals?

Major TRYON: I am not certain of that, but there is not the least doubt that the proposal of the hon. Member would introduce discrimination by war pensions committees between one case and another, which would be very prejudicial to the interests of those cases not favoured by the committee.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. DUNNICO: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the large number of widows who have been refused pension under Article 17A though the husbands at death were in receipt of pensions with assessments varying from 70 to 100 per cent.; and on what date instructions were issued to awarding officers that in no circumstances should a widow be admitted to pension under Article 17A if the disability of the husband had only been accepted as aggravated by war service?

Major TRYON: I do not know on what information the statement made by the hon. Member in the first part of his question is based, but it is not in accordance with the experience of my Department. No' instruction has at any time been issued to the effect suggested in the second part of the question. On the contrary, many awards have been and are being made in cases where the husband's disablement was accepted as only aggravated by though not attributable to war service.

LATE CLAIMS.

Sir PARK GOFF: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases in which pensions have been granted to officers or men although the claim was submitted over seven years from the date of discharge?

Major TRYON: Grants have been made in 70 cases of the kind referred to.

HOTELS (DOGS).

Colonel DAY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the laxity of hotel proprietors who permit dogs to be taken into public rooms in hotels; and
will he consider the introduction of legislation which will have as its object the prevention of dogs being admitted into public rooms of licensed hotels?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider recommending to the police that they should suggest to the licensing authorities the adoption of the proposal in the question?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think that is my duty.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in nearly all the Continental hotels this prohibition is in force?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not concerned with Continental hotels.

Mr. SEXTON: In view of the very trivial nature of some of the Questions on the Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the usefulness of an exercise of a muzzling order in relation to some hon. Members.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I quite agree.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does it do the dogs any harm to take them into hotels?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: it depends on the hotel.

SANDHOUSE HOTEL, BRAMPTON (SALE).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 6.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Sandhouse Hotel at Brampton, a State-management house, was sold to a private purchaser without any submission of the property to tender or other notification that it was in the market; what were the circumstances of this transaction, and why it was entered into; whether he is aware that the solicitor to the purchasers was secretary of the advisory council of the vendors; that the licensee of the said house, who had conducted the business successfully and without any complaint from the police for 25 years, was turned out of
occupation with a solatium of £50; that this house appeared in the licensing statistics for 1925 as a still existing on-licence under State management, although it had been used as a temperance hotel without a licence since October, 1923; and whether he will inquire into the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. I have made myself acquainted with the main facts of this transaction, which took place as long ago as 1923, when I had no responsibility in the matter. A question on the subject was answered at considerable length on the 15th November, 1923, by the Homo Secretary of that time. I would only say now that the house in question was never under State management, and has not appeared as so being in any of the volumes of licensing statistics.

CHARITIES (DOOR-TO-DOOR COLLECTIONS).

Colonel DAY: 7.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the Report of the Home Office Committee on the supervision of charities, he will consider the introduction of legislation making it compulsory that all door-to-door collections for charities should be licensed in future?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have only recently received the Report of this Committee. I am considering the recommendations, but I am not in a position to make a statement as to legislation at present.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these recommendations can be put into effect?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I only received within the last fortnight two or three long reports from Committees, which have been sitting for six months, and I must have some time to consider them.

Mr. BECKETT: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the matter, will he also consider the desirability of applying the supervision only for financial reasons?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must consider the whole Report.

MOTOR TRAFFIC (PROCEEDINGS).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 8.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that proceedings for offences connected with motor vehicles have increased from 25,701 in 1913 to 150,733 in 1925, any additional contribution from the Exchequer has been made to police authorities or to the Courts to cover the additional expense to which they are put?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. The financial arrangements in force are of a nature which makes it unnecessary to take such items of incrsase into account.

OVERSEERS.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 9.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that by the operation of Section 62 of the Rating Act, 1925, and of the Overseers Order, 1927, the overseers will be abolished on 1st April next, and their powers and duties as to relief from poor rate in cases of sudden and urgent necessity and medical relief will be transferred to any relieving officer; that the power of any justice of the peace to order the over seers in certain cases, by writing under his hand and seal, to give temporary relief in articles of absolute necessity but not in money and, in certain cases, to give a similar order for medical relief only, will become a like power to give an order to any relieving officer; and whether he proposes to draw the attention of the justices of the peace to this change in the law?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Steps are being taken to bring the provision to the notice of justices.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. TINKER: 14.
asked the Home Secretary the cost per £l of wages of compensation paid in 1925, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in each of the following industries: shipping, factories, docks, mines, quarries, constructional work and railways?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is estimated that the compensation paid per £l of wages in 1925 amounted to 5.4d. for the coal mining industry and just under 1d. for the railways. I regret that it is not possible to give corresponding figures for the other industries.

Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to get the figures for the other industries?

Sir W. JOYNSN-HICKS: I have tried, but I do not think it is possible. If I inquired all round, it might be possible to get them in time, but it would mean a great amount of labour.

Mr. TINKER: The two figures mentioned are given in the statistics, and I was wondering whether other statistics could not be given in regard to the other
industries.

Mr. BECKETT: Could not the insurance companies help the right hon. Gentleman in this matter?

Mr. TINKER: 15.
asked the Home Secretary the amount of compensation paid in 1925 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, apart from fatal accidents; and what the amount would have been if the first three days hud been paid for to those cases which were under four weeks' duration?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The amount paid in 1925 in cases of disablement in the seven groups of industries from which returns are obtained was £5,778,204. The amount paid in other industries is not known. As regards the second part of the question, I regret that the information necessary to enable any close calculation to be made is not available; but if we take the average rate of compensation in disablement cases during 1925 at 20 shillings—this of course is an arbitrary figure—the additional cost of the three days in the cases mentioned would have been somewhere between £100,000 and £120,000.

Mr. TINKER: Are the Government now considering the question of doing away with the period of three days?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. KELLY: Seeing that the insurance companies are already making a return to the Government, could they not be asked to make the return suggested in the Question?

Sir W. JOYNS0N-HICKS: I will consider whether the information is of sufficient importance to justify the expenditure which would be necessary.

FIRE BRIGADE SERVICE.

Captain GUNSTON: 16.
asked the Home Secretary if he is prepared to introduce legislation facilitating the amalgamation of fire brigades in adjoining local government areas?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware that the organisation of the fire brigade service has been the subject of full inquiry by a Royal Commission. I hope there may be an opportunity to introduce legislation before long, but I regret I see no possibility of doing so this Session.

Captain GUNSTON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the large fire which broke out at the Douglas Works just outside Bristol; that the Bristol fire brigade were ready to proceed to the scene of the fire, but could not do so until certain formalities had been gone through, with the result that an hour elapsed from the time the fire broke out until the brigade reached the scene; and does the right hon. Gentleman not think the time has come when some steps should be taken to remove these difficulties?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and gallant Friend has not given me notice of this case, otherwise I would have inquired into it. I will inquire into it.

CAMP HILL PRISON.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that it was the Governor of His Majesty's Detention Prison, Camp Hill, and not the Board of Visitors, who heard the original charge made by convict H. Smith in August, 1926, against an officer of using foul language, and that on this occasion Smith was refused permission to call witnesses; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir; and I have no fault to find with the action of the Governor, whose report has been before me. The be haviour of the convict Smith was not then in question. The charge against Smith was, as I have previously said, investigated by the
Board of Visitors. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Governor refused to allow Smith to call witnesses in defence of his case at that time?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have answered questions on this case before, as the hon. Member knows. The accusation was by one of the convicts, a man named Smith, against an officer of using foul language. That accusation was heard by the Governor, and the Governor came to the conclusion that the whole accusation was a complete concoction, and directed that Smith should be charged before the Prison Commissioners.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: How can it be right for the Governor to come to that conclusion when Smith offered to call witnesses and was prevented from doing to? Surely, in common fairness, he should have been allowed to call witnesses if he diseired.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Gases do break down sometimes on examination, and in this case the Governor came to the conclusion that Smith's ease broke down completely.

ELECTION MEETINGS (DISORDER).

Mr. EVERARD: 18.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the increasing practice of organised gangs of interrupters preventing the expression of views by candidates and ether speakers at Parliamentary elections; and whether he will, in the interests of democratic government, ask this House for increased powers to deal with this matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention has been called to the matter; but I am not at present in a position to make any proposals to the House.

Mr. EVERARD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a very onesided thing, and that it always happens when anti-Socialist speakers are speaking?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the only argument which will appeal to these
deluded Marxists is that of a good hammering from the supporters of the other side?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that precisely the same difficulty induced the House of Commons in 1906 to pass Lord Robert Cecil's Bill, which makes these interruptions illegal at the present time, and that that Act has never been put into operation simply because politicians will not use it?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know the difficulty in these cases, and I was much impressed by the speech the other night of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). If I could see my way to do anything which would prevent the breaking-up of meetings on either side, I would do it. I am strongly in favour of the right of free speech, but I am also impressed with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Has my right hon. Friend ever heard of a Labour meeting being broken up by Conservatives?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I did not say by Conservatives, but there are other parties who might do it.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: May I ask whether this is a continuation of the Socialist policy, as evidenced by the General Strike?

Sir JAMES REMNANT: In the event of the opposing side taking it into their own hands to settle their differences, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to let the police stand on one side?

PENTONVILLE PRISON.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 19.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has had his attention drawn to the character of the quarters provided for officers at His Majesty's Prison, Pentonville; and whether he proposes to make any improvements in these conditions?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The question of improving the block quarters at Pentonville has received repeated consideration, but owing to expense and other reasons it has not yet been found possible to improve the existing quarters or to provide additional ones.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon he will be in a position to take action to effect some improvement?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The question of improving the prison is one which has been under my close consideration.

SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA.

Mr. LOOKER: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received any reports from his Department regarding the number of people engaged in disseminating subversive propaganda in this country; and, if so, will he communicate the result of such information to the House?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret I can only say that I receive many reports of which it would not be in the public interest to give details.

Mr. LOOKER: Can my right hon. Friend state whether the persons engaged in this kind of propaganda are on the increase or on the decrease?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In the actual propaganda I should say that they are not on the increase. Certain steps have been taken to prevent it.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the powers that he has?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is rather like offering a dog a new bone. I am, satisfied that I am making as good use as I possibly can of the powers I now have.

Mr. WALLHEAD: What is the definition of "subversive"?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether the police authorities have obtained any further evidence with regard to those responsible for the privately printed leaflet inciting members of His Majesty's forces to mutiny, which leaflet was recently discovered to have been put into circulation in certain garrison towns.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No evidence has been discovered.

Sir F. HALL: Are the Government prosecuting inquiries with the object of elucidating whence this propaganda has emanated?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I understand it, the leaflet to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was a highly coloured piece of paper on which there was no imprint, no printer and no name, and it was put under the rails of Chelsea Barracks, and we have not been able to find out who printed it or from whence it came.

Sir F. HALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the representatives of His Majesty's Government in another place indicated that they were in hopes of tracing it? Are they taking steps to endeavour to do so?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps my Noble Friend in another place was more hopeful than I was, but I gave orders three weeks ago to the police to discover it if it was possible. It is not always possible to discover the origin of anonymous leaflets.

MENTAL HOSPITAL CASE (E. FORD).

Major ALAN McLEAN: 23.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Reggie Ford, aged 12, who was in 1922 committed to an industrial school and is now in a mental hospital; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the circumstances leading to his present condition?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The case of this little boy was brought to the notice of my predecessor, who made careful inquiry, and on the 27th June, 1924, stated, in reply to a Parliamentary question, that he was
satisfied that the magistrates, who in-eluded two women magistrates, dealt with the case with the fullest sympathy and with a desire to do what was best for the boy. The parents admitted that he was given to pilfering, that he was falling under the bad influence of older boys, and that they were unable to control him; and they asked that the boy might be sent away to school.
I agrse entirely with my predecessor's statement. When the boy was received into the school, in January, 1923, he was said to suffer from a nervous disorder, and special attention was given to him
under the supervision of the school doctor. As the nervous symptoms increased he was examined by a Home Office medical inspector, who came to the conclusion that the boy was probably suffering from the after-effects of encephalitis lethargica. Arrangements were then made for the transfer of the boy to another school, where, with the co-operation of the Somersetshire Education Committee, a special nurse was engaged for him for a considerable time, and where he received unremitting rare. Arrangements were also made for his special observation in a London hospital. The boy, however, steadily grew worse, and as it was impossible to keep him in the school he was discharged to the care of the guardians in July, 1925. Since then I understand that the boy has been certified under the Lunacy Act and is now in a mental hospital.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Will that boy now be classed as a mentally defective?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry to say it is more than that. I have given a full answer to the question because of the very unfair statement in a certain newspaper with regard to this boy.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, HULL.

Mr. LUMLEY: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has sanctioned the removal of the secondary school at present in Craven Street, Hull, to another site?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): Yes, Sir. I have approved the purchase of a site for a secondary school to replace the school now carried on at Craven Street, and the plans of the building are being discussed with the authority.

Mr. LUMLEY: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that some 2,300 new houses have been or will soon have been erected on the East Hull housing estate; that the only school at present on the estate, i.e., Southcoates Lane School, is already taxed to its utmost capacity; whether he has sanctioned proposals for the building of another school; and, if so, whether building will begin without delay?

Lord E. PERCY: I am aware of the position as represented by my hon. Friend. The local authority have issued notices of their intention to provide a new school for about 1,200 children and are in active negotiation for a site.

SECONDARY SCHOOL ENTRANTS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of elementary school children in 1926 in England and Wales who passed the necessary examination qualifying them for entry into a secondary school. and for how many such children were places found?

Lord E. PERCY: I am unable to supply the information for which the hon. Member asks. The total number of children who are recorded as having left public elementary schools in England and Wales during 1925–26, in order to attend secondary schools, was 34,227 boys and 28,000 girls.

TECHNICAL SCHOOLS, STAFFORDSHIRE.

Mr. SHORT: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether any technical schools in the County of Staffordshire are receiving assistance from the Miners' Welfare Fund; and, if not, whether grants can be allocated to such schools?

Lord E. PERCY: The Miners' Welfare Committee has allocated £12,000 for the establishment of a wing of the proposed technical institute at Hednesford, and £12,000 for the extension of the mining department at stoke-011-Trent. Additional equipment at the Dudley Technical College has been provided by the Committee at a cost of £500.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

CARDS (PROSECUTIONS).

Colonel DAY: 30.
asked the Minister of Health the number of prosecutions that have taken place for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date against employers who have failed to regularly stamp the health insurance cards of any of their employes or for failing to return the cards to their employes on the termination of their employment?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): In England and Wales,
for the year ended 28th February, 1927, the number of such prosecutions was 1,130.

APPROVED SOCIETIES.

Mr. ROBINSON: 48.
asked the Minister of Health the approximate sum that will accrue to proprietary approved societies as the result of the termination of sick and disablement benefits to persons aged 65 on and from 2nd January, 1928; and whether any of this money will be paid into the Exchequer either through taxation or by direct payment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what approved societies the hon. Member has in mind. There are no "proprietary approved societies," and no sum will accrue to any society as the result of the termination of sickness and disablement benefits to persons aged 65 from 2nd January, 1928. The relief resulting from this limitation of the benefits of the system of National Health Insurance accrues directly to the insured persons and their employers, and takes the form of a reduction of contributions by 1d. a week in the case of men and ½d. a week in the case of women. This reduction came into operation on 4th January, 1326. Provision is made by Section 38 of the Contributory Pensions Act for the consequent adjustment of the reserve values credited to approved societies, and this adjustment is explained in paragraph 29 of the Report of the Government Actuary on the financial provisions of the Bill (Cmd. 2406).

RIVER CHELMER (POLLUTION).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 39.
asked the Minister of Health when he will be prepared to give a decision on the application of the Essex County Council for leave to take proceedings in reference to the alleged pollution of the River Chelmer by the Felstead sugar-beet factory?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope to give an early decision in this case. I understand that the factory is at present closed down and that the company have expressed their willingness to carry out
recommendations made by an expert called in to investigate conditions at factories of this kind.

REGISTRATION OF OPTICIANS (COMMITTEE).

Mr. ROBERT WILSON: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to announce the names of those who will form the committee to inquire into the registration of opticians?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee which has been appointed jointly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself has now been constituted as follows:

Mr. F. B. Merriman, O.B.E., K.C. M.P. (Chairman.)
Mr. O. Aves.
Mr. W. B. Barker.
Mr. H. B. Brackenbury, M.R.C.S.
Mr. L. G. Brock, C.B.
Mr. E. Treacher Collins, F.R.C.S.
Mrs. W. L. Courtney, O.B.E.
Lord Cozens-Hardy.
Mr. R. J. Davies, M.P.
Mr. H. L. F. Fraser, M.A., LL.B.
Dr. C. O. Hawthorne, M.D., F.R.C.P.
Mr. G. E. Houghton.
Sir Henry Keith.
Mr. J. S. Henderson, of the Ministry of Health (Secretary.)

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the terms of reference to the committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot give them now, but I will give them to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.

Mr. MONTAGUE: 33.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses built up to date by local authorities under each of the post-War assisted housing schemes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving particulars of house-building since the 1st January, 1919.

Following is the statement:

Statement showing the numbers of houses erected in England and Wales since 1st January, 1919

—
Houses erected by


Local Authorities.
Private Enterprise.


1. State-assisted houses (to 1st March, 1927).





(a) Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919
…
169,805
4,545


(b) Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919
…
—
39,186


(c) Housing, etc., Act, 1923
…
47,859
185,373


(d) Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924
…
82,553
1,516


Total State-assisted houses
…
300,217
230,620


2. Non-subsidy houses (to 30th September, 1926).





*(a) Not exceeding £26 rateable value
…
—
207,700


*(b) Exceeding £26 rateable value but not exceeding £78
…
—
80,505


Total non-subsidy houses
…
—
288,205


* The corresponding rateable values in the Metropolis are £35 and £105.

STATE SUBSIDY.

Colonel ENGLAND: 47.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the effect, so far as can be ascertained, of the reduced building subsidy on the rate of building in this country; whether any concrete evidence has reached his Department that any projects of building have thereby been prejudiced; and whether the facts in his possession indicate the propriety of any further reduction in the near future?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no evidence to show that the reduction in the building subsidy for houses completed after 30th September next has had any prejudicial effect on the rate of building. It is too early as yet to form any conclusions of the propriety of any further reduction in the amount of subsidy and the hon. and gallant Member will be aware that under the Housing Act, 1924, the question of a further review of subsidy arrangements does not arise until October, 1928.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the Exchequer contributions made each year

in respect of housing schemes in England and Wales, under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, the Housing Act, 1923, and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, and show the number of houses in each case for each year in respect of which subsidy was paid?

Mr. GARDNER: 57.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the Exchequer contributions made each year in respect of housing schemes in England and Wales under the Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1919, the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, the Housing, &c, Act, 1923, the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, and the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, and show the number of houses in each case for each year in respect of which subsidy was paid?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With the hon. Members' permission I will answer these questions together, and as the reply involves a statistical statement, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS IN RESPECT OF HOUSING SCHEMES IN ENGLAND AND WALES.


Financial Year.
Number of Houses (completed by the end of each financial year) towards the expenses of which annual Exchequer Contributions were made.
Amount of Annual Exchequer Contributions paid in each Financial Year.
Financial Year.


Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act, 1919.
Housing, etc. Act, 1923.
Housing (Financial Provisions) Act. 1924.
Housing (Rural Workers Act 1926
Totals.
Housing Town Planning, etc Act, 1919.
Housing etc. Act 1923
Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.
Housing (Rural Workers Act, 1926.
Totals.









£
£
£
£
£



1919–20
…
715
—
—
—
715
2,653
—
—
—
2,653
1919–20.


1920–21
…
17,597
—
—
—
17,597
525,728
—
—
—
525,728
1920–21.


1921–22
…
100,516
—
—
—
100,516
4,533,229
—
—
—
4,533,229
1921–22.


1922–23
…
159,002
—
—
—
159,002
7,226,327
—
—
—
7,226,327
1922–23.


1923–24
…
169,526
8,140
—
—
177,666
7,774,664
6,108
—
—
7,780,772
1923–24.


1924–25
…
172,428
70,421
2,486
—
245,335
7,863,710
96,665
1,885
—
7,962,260
1924–25.


1925–26
…
173,515
149,043
29,764
—
352,322
7,262,266
439,641
88,683
—
7,790,590
1925–26.


1926–27 (11 months to 1st March, 1927).
174,350
233,232
84,069
—
491,651
5,274,392
701,967
288,068
—
6,264,427
1926–27 (11 months to 1st March, 1927).


Totals
…
—
—
—
—
—
40,462,969
1,244,381
378,636
—
42,085,986

In addition, the following lump sum grants were paid under Housing (Additonal powers)Act, 1919:—

Financial Year.
Number of Houses completed.
Amount of Exchequer Grant.


—
—
—









£


1920–21…
…
…
11,208
…
…
2,528,552


1921–22
…
…
…
18,233
…
…
4,540,424


1922–23
…
…
…
9,738
…
…
2,422,746


1923–24
…
…
…
7
…
…
1,433





39,186


9,493,155

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

MERTHYR TYDVIL AND PONTYPRIDD.

Mr. G. HALL: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Merthyr Tydvil and the Pontypridd Boards of Guardians have on their relief lists thousands of unemployed men and their dependants for whom no employment can be found; and whether, in view of the burden thrown upon the local rates, he is now in a position to say what action he proposes to take to relieve these and other unions suffering similar disabilities from these financial burdens?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that large numbers of persons are in receipt of relief in the two unions named. With regard to the latter part of the question, I can add nothing to the statements made on behalf of the Government in the frequent debates on the position of what are called the necessitous areas.

Mr. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is estimated that the sum of £100,000 will have to be spent under this head by the Merthyr Tydvil Union alone, and that this represents a rate of three shillings in the pound? Is that not of sufficient importance to justify a reconsideration of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude in relation to this question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

SCALES OF BELIEF.

Mr. TAYLOR: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether, before seeking to compel boards of guardians to reduce the amount of relief paid to unemployed persons and their dependants, he has sought the opinion of his medical advisers as to the amount of food and clothing required to maintain a normal state of health amongst unemployed persons dependent on Poor Law relief?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, but pressure has not in any case been applied to secure a reduction of scales of relief except on the ground that in other apparently comparable unions relief on substantially lower scales was found sufficient.

Mr. TAYLOR: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify forcing down scales of
relief which in the opinion of the local guardians are below the amount needed for sustenance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It cannot be said that the scales where they are in operation are to be considered to be below the level of sustenance. I have to compare the scales whore scales are used in one union with the scales actually in operation in other unions, if two unions are comparable. I think I am justified in asking, in cases where the financial position of the guardians is as serious as it is in many of these eases. that they should do something to reduce their expenditure.

Mr. TAYLOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it a very reprehensible thing to force local bodies to inflict a lower scale of relief?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a debating point.

Mr. TAYLOR: 56.
asked the Minister of Health in what Poor Law area the scale of special unemployment relief is as high as or higher than that paid by the Lincoln Board of Guardians?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is difficult to make a comparison of the kind suggested with any certainty since scales of relief are not drawn on any single model and moreover are qualified by variations in the allowances given and by the method of their application to particular cases. It would, however, be safe to say that in the majority of unions in which a scale of relief for unemployed cases is in use, the scale would be no higher if as high as that hitherto adopted by the Lincoln Board of Guardians.

Mr. TAYLOR: What are the areas which the right hon. Gentleman regarded as comparable with Lincoln when he compelled the local board of guardians to reduce their scales?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member puts down a question, I shall try to satisfy his curiosity.

Mr. TAYLOR: I am asking a question arising out of the Minister's answer, and I am asking for information which it is quite easy for the right hon. Gentleman to obtain. Why cannot he give us this information?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been told that if he puts down a question, the information will be obtained.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I wish to ask a supplementary question. I want to ask the Minister if he has considered this point—that if he does not make a sufficient allowance, over and above what is necessary for sustenance, the recipients will not be able to make any contribution to the guardians. [Interruption.]

Mr. TAYLOR: This is a Tory board of guardians.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. Is it in order,, when a Member puts down a question to a Minister, for the Minister to reply that notice roust be given of the question which has already been put down?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member who put down the question has been told that he can ask a further question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On another point of Order. I have taken no part in this controversy, but may I point out that the alleged question of the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) was just as objectionable as any comment made on this side.

Mr. SPEAKER: If I were to criticise the attempts at humour, I am afraid I should have a great deal of trouble. There are humorous interjections—

Mr. MONTAGUE: It is a humorous subject—to the Minister!

Mr. SPEAKER: —but all these interjections only waste the time of other Members for their questions.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. ROBINSON: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether any representations have been made to any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain in respect of reciprocal arrangements under Section 33 of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925; and, if so, can he state the present position?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Special Oversea Settlement Sub-Committee of the Imperial Conference which considered
the question of the standardisation of social insurance schemes throughout the Empire (See page 282 of Cmd. 2769). I understand that it is hoped to address a communication dealing with the recommendations of the Sub-Committee to the Governments of the Dominions at an early date.

Mr. ROBINSON: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. G. Shepherd, of Kendal, Claim No. 362,346/27, who has been informed by the pension officer that he is eligible for an old age pension under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, but that the pension payable under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, would cease when the old age pension became payable; and, as this is contrary to Section 24 (4) of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, will he issue instructions to the pension officers throughout Britain calling their attention to the right of a person, if eligible, to draw the pension under the Blind Persons Act and under the Contributory Pensions Act concurrently?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has not previously been drawn to this case. I may say, however, that the statement alleged to have been made in the second part of the question would not be accurate as it stands. The effect of the relative provisions of the Act of 1925 is to enable pensions to be drawn concurrently up to the age of 70 under that Act and under the Blind Persons Act.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (STANDING ORDERS).

Sir P. GOFF: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the notice of Amendments to certain Standing Orders standing on the Notice Paper of the House in the name of the hon. Member for the Cleveland division; and will the House be afforded an opportunity of discussing them?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): My attention has been called to the notice in question. I propose to set up forthwith a Committee representative of all parties in the House to determine what allocation of Private Members' time will best suit the convenience of Members.

COAL MINES (ABOLITION OF WHEELLESS TUBS) BILL.

Mr. WHITELEY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the disclosures which have been made regarding the method of underground transport of coal in the Somerset coalfield and the physical injury and indignity inflicted thereby, the Government will give facilities for the further stages of the Coal Mines (Abolition of Wheelless Tubs) Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I see no prospect at present of special facilities being given for any Private Bill.

Mr. WHITELEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only in the county of Staffordshire, I think, and in two collieries in Wales where this system prevails—

The PRIME MINISTER: In Somerset.

Mr. WHITELEY: I beg pardon, I should have said only in Somersetshire and two counties in Wales. As there is a private Bill down, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to instruct Members of his own party not to take exception to that Bill and to give it an opportunity of going to Committee.

Mr. G. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no demand whatever from Somerset for this Measure?

HON. MEMBERS: Yes, there is!

The PRIME MINISTER: In answer to the first Supplementary Question about giving facilities for a private Member's Bill, the first business of the Leader of the House, who is responsible for business, is to get the public business through. It is quite impossible, as the House can see from this Question, to say now whether any facilities can be given during this Session for any private Member's Bill—I draw no distinction between them—and on that, I can say nothing further to-day. In regard to the Bill in question, I would only say this, that the Supplementary Question which was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. G. Peto) coincides with such facts as have come to my notice, and I think that, even if there were a possibility of finding time for this Bill, an inquiry ought to be held first into the question, and I am considering now, in view of the interest
which this matter has aroused, whether that would be the proper procedure to take.

Mr. LOOKER: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that all private Member's Bills which have not yet received a Second Reading are doomed?

Mr. WHITELEY: I am prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's answer.

MILK AND DAIRIES ORDER, 1926.

Mr. WRIGHT: 49.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to issue a Report from time to time showing the action taken by local authorities to apply the Milk and Dailies Order, 1926?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The action taken by a local authority under the Milk and Dairies Order is a matter to be included in the Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health. So far a & these Reports are capable of being summarised, the subject will be referred to from time to time in the Annual Report of my Department.

WORKS OF ART (EXPORTATION).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the valuable works of art that are being exported in increasing numbers from this country, he will consider the imposition of an export tax on all works of art over 100 years old?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, which is not a novel one, has been noted.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

IEISH LAND BONDS.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in regard to the guaranteed Four and a-half per cent. Irish Land Bonds, he is prepared to carry on the same arrangements with regard to double Income Tax for 1927–28 as have been in force for 1926–27?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

DOUBLE TAXATION.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: 62
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will institute negotiations with the United States Treasury for the purpose of insuring that in cases where British subjects are married to United States citizens and wish to become ordinarily resident in both countries that only that portion of their income actually derived in the United States or in Great Britain shall be subject to the Income Tax and Super-tax of the country in which the money is derived, provided that an equitable scheme of taxation can be arranged between the two countries that will ensure that the subject or citizen, as the case may be, shall not have to pay in taxation an amount greater than would be the case if his or her whole income was derived from that country having the highest taxation;
(2) if he is aware that, if a British subject marries an American citizen, in many cases, owing to the double incidence of Income Tax and Super-tax, it is not possible for them after marriage to become ordinarily resident in both England and America; and will he initiate negotiations with the United States Treasury for the purpose of devising an equitable scheme of taxation in cases of British subjects married to United States citizens which will enable them to become ordinarily resident in Great Britain and the United States and ensure that the subject or citizen will not have to pay in taxation an amount greater than would be the case if his or her whole income was derived from that country having the highest taxation;
(3) if he is aware that in many cases where English subjects have married American citizens such married persons would establish residence in this country, thereby benefiting trade by their expenditure, if it were not for the fact that if they established residence in this country their gross income derived from property, trades, professions, employments, securities, stocks, shares and rents in the United States of America is subject to British Income Tax, and consequently British Super-tax; and will he consider amending the Income Tax law to enable this trade benefit to be obtained?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware of the position to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, which illustrates a particular aspect of the problem of double taxation. The general question of double taxation is being considered by a Committee of the League of Nations, on which this country is represented. If, however, favourable indications reach me from any individual foreign country that some fair and reciprocal arrangement can be entered into, I should not feel bound to await the achievement of a general solution at Geneva.

Lieut-Commander BURNEY: As the United States is not a member of the League of Nations, will the right hon. Gentleman consider opening negotiations directly with that country, without waiting for the negotiations which are proceeding at Geneva?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said that I should not be deterred from opening negotiations with any country by the fact that the discussions at Geneva had not yet reached a conclusion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How much would it cost the Treasury if this alteration were made?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I could not possibly say without making careful calculations, but I see no reason why advantage should not be gained by a fair and satisfactory arrangement.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the United States the only country that matters, because it is only from the United States that ladies with large fortunes come?

Mr. RHYS: What guarantee has the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the United States would accept any decision reached at Geneva?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have never suggested that any arrangement with the United States would be dependent on any decision reached by Geneva.

HOUSEKEEPERS AND DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Mr. LOOKER: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to the Exchequer would be if single men were placed upon the same footing as married men and widowers in respect of housekeepers and dependants' allowances for the purposes of Income Tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret I am unable to give an estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of placing single men upon the same footing as widowers in respect of the housekeeper's allowance.
As regards the allowance for dependent relatives, if my hon. Friend will refer to the provisions of Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1920, he will see that no distinction is made between single and others in the grant of this allowance.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Treasury's estimate that it would save the taxpayers £13,000 a year, he will give instructions that in future only vouchers for third-class travelling will be issued free of charge to Members of this House?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. Such a self-denying ordinance would not fall equally on all Members. It is, however, always open to any Member to return the difference to the Exchequer or not to avail himself of the facilities.

Dr. WATTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if the Government were to arrange with the railway companies to supply Members with first-class season tickets instead of with vouchers chargeable at the full ordinary rate, they would save much money?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that in every section of the British Empire, and practically every civilised country in the world, Members of Parliament enjoy first-class free passes over all the railways?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I believe that is so. In regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Dr. Watts), that has been very carefully investigated in former years, and the conclusion reached was that financial advantage would not be gained.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the right hon Gentleman consider giving Members the alternative of either having their present first-class vouchers or third-class season tickets?

REPARATION RECEIPTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total money payments received by this country in reparations from ex-enemy countries since the end of the late War; the estimated value in pounds sterling of the reparations received in kind by this country; and what have been the total payments received by this country towards the costs of the armies of occupation in pounds sterling?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This country has received from Germany, approximately, £57 millions on account of the costs of the British Army of Occupation, and £33 millions on account of reparations. Of the above, some £10 millions were taken in the form of deliveries in kind and a further £10 millions in the form of German currency and supplies furnished to the Army of Occupation. We have received in cash from Bulgaria £133,000 on account of the cost of the British occupation, and £98,000 on account of reparation. No reparation payments have been made to His Majesty's Government by Austria or Hungary.

BETTING DUTY.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of receipts under the Betting Duty which has accrued from racing that took place during the week ending 26th March?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that the information requested is not available. It is never possible to state the yield of the Betting Duty in respect of horse racing which takes place in any particular period, as the receipts of duty in a given period have no necessary relation to the events occurring therein. The duty on bets in connection with any event may be paid in part well in advance by the purchase of revenue tickets and in part in arrear under the returns arrangement. Moreover, the betting revenue cannot be allocated to various forms of sport, e.g., horse racing, coursing, dog racing and athletic meetings.

Sir F. HALL: Seeing that the anticipations of the Government have not been
reached, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make any alteration in the forthcoming Budget?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would rather deal with that when the time comes, but I really have not attempted to conceal my opinion that the tax ought to have a fair trial during the flat racing season.

Mr. LOOKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that he would get at least as much from the totalisator as from the Betting Duty?

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Captain WATERHOUSE: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated loss of Entertainments Duty through the falling off of racecourse receipts since 1st November, 1926?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind a comparison between the Entertainments Duty paid in respect of race-course receipts from the 1st November, 1926, to some convenient date and the duty for a similar period a year ago. Particulars of the total receipts of the Entertainments Duty in respect of different kinds of entertainments cannot be obtained, as there is no official information in regard to the nature of entertainments in respect of which duty is paid by previous purchase of stamps or tickets. Hence, no precise comparison of the kind asked for can be made. But it is my intention to deal with this and all other aspects of the Betting Duty in the course of the Debates on the Finance Bill.

NATIONAL GALLERY (HUGH LANE BEQUEST).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 72.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the present position with regard to the pictures left by the late Sir Hugh Lane?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to answer this question. I would refen the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a question by my hon. and
gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) on 5th July last. The position is unchanged since that date.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the position still, therefore, that all that is required to have these pictures made over to Dublin is legislation in this House, and is it proposed to bring in that legislation?

Mr. AMERY: No. The Prime Minister's answer was very clear on that point.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is it not a fact that Sir Hugh Lane stipulated that a gallery should be built for these pictures if they were to go to Dublin, and is it not also a fact that no such step has been taken by the Free State Government?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is at reasonable to expect a gallery to be put up when there are no pictures to be put in it?

Mr. AMERY: The question of a gallery does not arise. As to the question of introducing legislation overriding the right of the National Gallery here to these pictures, the Government, after full and most careful examination of the whole question, in which they were assisted by a Committee under the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon, decided that they could not do that.

BRITISH CEMENT (PRICES).

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Monmouthshire County Council were purchasing foreign cement for their Newport-Cardiff road improvement at 43s. per ton, whilst the lowest British tender obtainable was 64s. 9d.; that when he objected to the use of foreign cement the result was that British firms then quoted 74s. 9d. per ton, two of these firms having works within 12 miles of the place of delivery; and that Middlesbrough accepted a British tender at 50s. 2d. a ton; and whether, seeing that the Government pays a large proportion of the cost of these and similar road works, he will take steps to standardise the prices of British cement firms?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am aware that there have been considerable variations in the prices charged for Portland cement in different localities, especially during the general disturbance of trade caused by the coal stoppage when a surcharge of 10s. per ton was temporarily added in some cases—to cover the extra cost of fuel. I am not, however, in a position to standardise prices.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

NAVY AND ARMY (CIVIL STAFFS).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 73.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the increase in Civil Service expenditure since 1914, he will consider the desirability of issuing instructons that all civil staffs in the de partments of the Navy and Army shall be reduced in the same proportion as reductions have been effected in the various ranks of those fighting Services?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The number of officers and men serving in the Navy and the Army is no doubt one of the factors which affect the size of the civil establishments of the Admiralty and the War Office; but it is certainly not the only factor to be taken into account. The composition of these establishments cannot be directly proportioned to the strength of the fighting forces. If my hon. and gallant Friend desires more detailed information as to the reasons which have led to an increase of staff in these two Departments, I would refer him to the detailed answer given by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty on the 18th November, 1925, and to the Memorandum regarding the staff of the War Office which appears as an Appendix to the Report of the Select Committee of Public Accounts in the Army Accounts for 1924–25.

WORKING HOURS (CLOCKING).

Mr. WELLS: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will adopt for the Civil Service the usual practice of business houses in clocking their employes and staffs in and out and thus register their hours of work?

Mr. McNEILL: The general adoption of time clocks, in lieu of attendance books, for all civilian staffs would not, so far as I am aware, be in accordance with normal outside practice. The clocking-in system is already in force in a certain number of Government establishments, where it can be appropriately employed.

Mr. KELLY: Might we have this suggestion applied to Members of this House?

TRADE UNIONS (REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S REPORT).

Mr. KELLY: 75.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the Report of the Registrar General on trade unions for 1925 has not yet been issued; and when he expects that it will be available?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The delay in issuing the Report is due to pressure of business. It is, however, now in proof form and is expected to be ready within the next six weeks. As the hon. Member is probably aware, a statistical summary containing the figures for 1925 was issued at the beginning of this year and can be obtained from the Stationery Office.

Mr. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why there has been this delay?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Pressure of business.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

OUSE DRAINAGE BOARD.

Mr. WELLS: 76.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of money spent by the Out Drainage Board for administration as compared to the amount spent on works or maintenance in the Out drainage area during 1924, 1925 and 1926?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): None of the returns in the possession of the Ministry enables me to afford my hon. Friend the precise information which he desires, but I am endeavouring to procure it for him from the Out Board.

STATISTICS.

Mr. G. HALL: 77.
asked the Minister of Agriculture to state the acreage of arable land and the total acreage of crops and
permanent grass in Wales during the years 1891, 1901, 1912, 1921, 1925, and 1926, respectively, and the number of persons engaged during each of the years on such land?

Mr. GUINNESS: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information desired.

Following is the information:

The acreage of arable land and the total acreage of crops and permanent grass in Wales (including Monmouth) in each of the undermentioned years were as fellows:



…
…
Arable land.
Total crops and permanent grass.



…
…
Acres.
Acres.


1891
…
…
930,288
3,133,335


1901
…
…
927,518
3,065,672


1911
…
…
759,043
3,008,637


1921
…
…
818,611
2,822,659


1925
…
…
681,600
2,789,896


1926
…
…
674,605
2,779,667

Comparable figures of the number of persons engaged in agriculture during each of these years are not available. The returns obtained in connection with the population censuses give the number of persons in agricultural occupations as fellows:






Number.


1891
…
…
…
100,000


1901
…
…
…
93,402


1911
…
…
…
96,622


1921
…
…
…
91,742

The above figures include all persons describing themselves as farmers, graziers, male relatives assisting in the work of the farms, farm bailiffs, foremen, shepherds, and agricultural labourers.

Returns obtained in connection with the agricultural returns of recent years give the number of persons actually employed on agricultural holdings in Wales (including Monmouth), excluding occupiers, their wives and domestic servants, as returned by occupiers on 4th June each year, as follows:






Number.


1921
…
…
…
68,139


1925
…
…
…
61,182


1926
…
…
…
62,364

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 80.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of out breaks of foot-and-mouth disease in 1926; the number of animals slaughtered; and the amount of compensation paid?

Mr. GUINNESS: 204 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in the year ended 31st December, 1926, in connection with which 20,002 animals were slaughtered. The gross compensation paid was £188,605.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the embargo on the importation of foreign meat has had a good deal to do with these very satisfactory figures?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think there is no doubt it is the combined effect of the embargo and the new Order which we have imposed in connection with boiling swill. In the first three months of this year we have only paid £28,750 compensation, against £67,000 in the corresponding period of last year.

WOMEN'S WAGES.

Mr. WRIGHT: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can report any improvement in the administration of the Agricultural Wages Act, 1924, in respect of the payment of women's wages?

Mr. GUINNESS: The wages and conditions applied by the Agricultural Wages Committees to women workers in the Orders made under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act remain generally unchanged, but I have no reason to suppose that the Orders generally are not sufficient to meet the circumstances of women's employment. In view, however, of representations which have been made to me, I am proposing to make inquiries as to the actual conditions under which women are employed in each county.

FISHERY DISTRICTS (POLLUTION PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. EVERARD: 78.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many prosecutions for pollutions have been undertaken by fishery districts in 1926; how many convictions were obtained; and the amount of the fines imposed?

Mr. GUINNESS: Five prosecutions in respect of pollutions were undertaken by Fishery Boards in 1926; three convictions were obtained, the fines imposed being £25, £10 10s. and £1 respectively.

FISHING LICENCES.

Mr. EVERARD: 79.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many fishery districts have imposed a rod tax; the amount of the tax; and the number of licences sold in each district during 1926?

Mr. GUINNESS: I assume that by "Rod Tax" my hon. Friend refers to licence duties for fishing with rod and line for salmon, trout or freshwater fish; such duties are charged in forty-four fishery districts; the amounts vary according to district, kind of fish and period. I am sending my hon. Friend a separate statement giving the full details.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

RURAL TELEPHONES.

Mr. WRIGHT: 89.
asked the Post master-General what steps he is taking to facilitate the use of the telephone in country districts?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The Postmaster-General proposes to make a statement on this matter this afternoon upon the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Colonel G. J. Acland-Troyte) on going into Committee of Supply.

CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE.

Mr. AMMON: 90.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, before inaugurating the cash-on-delivery service, he sought the advice of the Post Office Advisory Committee; and whether that Committee have advised against the advertising of the service by means of cancelling stamps on letters?

Viscount WOLMER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (AIRSHIPS).

Mr. HARDIE: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the two airships to be constructed at Cardington and Howden, respectively, are to be rigid or non-rigid constructions; and will he state what materials are to be used for the framework?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The answer to the first part of the question is that both airships will be of the rigid type; to the second, that both duralumin and stainless steel are being used in the framework of the Cardington airship and duralumin in that of the Howden airship.

Mr. HARDIE: Are we to understand that work has already begun on the framework?

Sir P. SASSOON: Oh, yes, it has been begun.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of airships which have been constructed to date in this country, their total cost, and the number of miles flown by each of them?

Sir P. SASSOON: I assume that the hon. Member refers to rigid airships only. On this assumption the number constructed or partially constructed was 19, at a cost of between three and a-half and four millions sterling. Figures for the number of miles flown by each of these vessels are not available.

Mr. SMITH: 88.
also asked the Secretary of State for Air when the two air ships at present under construction will be ready for service?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is not possible to give firm dates. The airships cannot be ready for service until they have completed exhaustive trials. I have already stated in my memorandum accompanying Air Estimates that both airships should be flying in 1928.

CIVIL AVIATION (GRANTS).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the sums of money paid each year since 1919 by the Government in aid of civil aviation and the names of the parties, with the amount paid in each case?

Sir P. SASSOON: With the hon. Member's permission,, I will circulate the reply, which contains figures in a tabulated form, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:


CIVIL AVIATION SUBSIDIES. YEARS 1921–22 TO 1926–27.


—
1921–22.
1922–23.
1923–24.
1924–25.
1925–26.
1926–27. (Estimated)
Remarks.


Transport Companies.
£
£
£
£
£
£



Daimler
—
39,304
54,936
1,854
—
—
—


Handley Page
37,150
34,169
20,822
2,331
—
—
—


Instones
38,475
45,818
32,363
2,578
—
—
—


British Marine Air Navigation.
—
—
3,846
178
—
—
—



75,625
119,291
111,967
6,941
—
—
—


Cost of aircraft for above.
—
62,461
2,566
—
—
—
—


De Havilland (Plymouth-Belfast Mail Carrying).
—
—
1,672
50
—
—
—


Imperial Airways
—
—
—
131,520
137,000
(a) 142,480
(a) European Services.








(b) 30,000
(b)Egypt-India Services.


Miscellaneous.









Society of British Aircraft Constructors for Gothenburg Exhibition.
—
—
8,500
—
—
—
—


Lloyd's Register (Aircraft).
—
—
553
—
—
—
—


Light Aeroplane Clubs.









Hampshire
—
—
—
—
—
2,270
—


Lancashire
—
—
—
—
3,000
550
—


London
—
—
—
—
3,030
982
—


Midland
—
—
—
—
2,509
1,080
—


Newcastle
—
—
—
—
3,020
1,100
—


Yorkshire
—
—
—
—
1,235
2,285
—







12,785
8,267
—


Totals
75,625
181,752
125,258
138,511
149,785
180,747
—

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (WOMEN).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 91.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the many openings there are for women in the Dominions and Colonies, he can inform the House what efforts are being made to place before the women of this country the advantages to be obtained overseas; and whether he can give the number of those who migrated during the past 12 months?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): Special efforts are being made

No subsidies were granted during the years 1919–20 and 1920–21. The following table gives the information requested in respect of the years 1921–22 to 1926–27:

to place before women of this country full information as to the conditions and as to the opportunities for women overseas. This information is being disseminated through the Women's Branch of the Oversea Settlement Committee, who have already organised eight county centres for this purpose, and supply speakers when requested to women's organisations throughout the country. There are openings for women overseas in professional capacities, but apart from wives and nominated women, assisted passages are as yet only given to women able and willing to take up
household work, and who undertake to remain in such work for 12 months. The total number of women of 12 years of age and over who proceeded to other parts of the Empire during 1926 was 48,608. The number over 17 years of age assisted under the Empire Settlement Act was 18,668.

OFFICE OF WORKS HOUSES.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 92.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that when the Office of Works houses in the Bulwark and Hardwicke districts were erected the rents were fixed in accordance with the prices then prevailing, and that no reduction in these rents has been made since, although the rents of Government houses in the Pennsylvania district were reduced when those houses were taken over by the Disposal Board; and whether he will take steps to secure similar reductions in the rents of the Bulwark and Hardwicke houses?

Captain KING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The rents payable in respect of the houses on the Bulwark and Hardwick Estates were fully inquired into by my Noble Friend personally on the spot in 1925, and reductions were in fact made in certain cases. The rents charged are considered reasonable, indeed many are too low. The houses on the Pennsylvania Estate are occupied by War Office employes as part of the terms of their employment, and the rents payable by them are not comparable with the rents payable by the private tenants at Bulwark and Hardwick. The answer to the last part, therefore, is in the negative.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 93.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that attempts are being made to secure the eviction of certain unemployed work men from houses in the Chepstow district owned by the Office of Works; that in one case the tenant of 20, Alexandra Road, Bulwark, was transferred from the Army in 1919 to work in the national shipyard, in 1919 was given a 10 years' guarantee under the Monmouth Ship building Company, was discharged in
1921, and ever since has been employed only at rare intervals; that in another case the tenant of 4, Bulwark Avenue, Bulwark, a man with a wife and four children, was also assured of 10 years' employment in 1919, was discharged in 1921, and has had little employment since; and that in a third case the tenant of 16, Alexandra Road, Bulwark, a man with a wife and four children, has had very little employment since March, 1921; and whether, in view of the fact that these men were induced to settle in the Chepstow district under promise of regular employment and have been unable to earn the means to pay their rent, he will have the decision to secure their eviction reconsidered

Captain KING: The arrears of rent due from the tenants in question amount to over £100 in each ease, and it has therefore been necessary to apply for eviction, to prevent further loss from falling upon the Exchequer. My Noble Friend regrets, therefore, that the answer to the last part must be in the negative. My Noble Friend has no information with regard to the 10 years' guarantee alleged to have been given by the Monmouth Shipbuilding Company.

CANADA (IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS).

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 94.
asked the Minister ox Labour whether he is aware that some 114 bachelor immigrants arriving on the steamship "Dorie" in Canada, trainees on the Ministry of Labour model farm, spent the £2 landing money given them in order that they might comply with Canadian immigration regulations before embarkation, and that the Government had to cable out the amount necessary to cover the shortage; will he take steps to see that such a situation does not recur; and what steps is he taking to recover the money from the trainees?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member appears to be misinformed. The special arrangements for the transportation of these trainees make it unnecessary for them to have landing money, and no landing money was paid to or for them by the Ministry of Labour or any other Government Department, either direct or by cable.

EAILWAY BRIDGES (BUXTON-ASHBOURNE ROAD).

Captain WATERHOUSE: 95.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the condition of certain bridges on the Buxton-Ashbourne road; and if he will take steps to ensure that railway companies do not spoil a length of road kept up at the public expense by neglecting to keep the highway for which they are responsible in proper repair?

Colonol ASHLEY: Representations on the subject have been made to me, and I understand that certain negotiations are now proceeding between the local authorities and the railway company concerning these bridges. While my officers always do their best in such cases to facilitate a satisfactory settlement between the parties concerned, I am not in a position to impose terms.

Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the condition of the roads on railway bridges is a matter of common complaint all up and down the country, and does he propose taking any power to compel railway companies to keep these roads in repair?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not propose at the present moment to ask for power. In certain cases satisfactory arrangements have been come to between local authorities and railway companies, whereby the surface of the roads on these bridges is kept up, two-thirds of the cost being contributed by the railway company and one-third by the local authority.

Mr. PALING: But if there are any cases where a road has been got into proper repair, and for two or three years the railway company have done nothing, has the right hon. Gentleman any power to compel them to face their responsibility?

Colonel ASHLEY: No power.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how bad such a road has to reach before it becomes an obstruction to the highway?

ARMY VOCATIONAL TRAINING.

Mr. LUMLEY: 98.
asked the Secretary of State for War if it has been decided
to extend the schemes for vocational training at Catterick and Hounslow?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Yes, Sir. As I stated during the Debate on Army Estimates, the facilities for training at both stations are being increased and another Army training centre on a large scale is being opened at Aldershot.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

RAILWAY STRIKE, KHARGPUR.

Mr. LANSBURY: 99.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can now state the terms on which the recent strike on the Bengal-Nagpur Railway at Khargpur has been settled; and whether it is proposed to hold a public inquiry into this matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I have no information beyond that given in my reply to the hon. Member on the 21st instant. So far as I am aware it is not proposed to hold a public inquiry into the matter.

Mr. LANSBURY: Can the Noble Lord give the terms of settlement of this strike?

Earl WINTERTON: I gave the terms to the hon. Member on the 21st of March, 1927. I will read them out again if he thinks it is necessary, but I consider it is unnecessary.

RESERVE OF OFFICERS.

Mr. DUNNICO: 100.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what progress has been made with the scheme for the Army in India reserve of officers; and how many Indians have received commissions under this scheme?

Earl WINTERTON: The new Regulations for the Army in India Reserve of Officers were published in July, 1926. Up to the end of February, 1927, 445 officers had been appointed, of whom 15 were Indians.

ALBANIA.

Mr. BUXTON: 101.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of Albania is still advised by a financial adviser appointed by the League of Nations: and, if so, whether
this adviser has recently reported to the Council of the League of Nations on the conditions in Albania?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): There has been no League of Nations financial adviser in Albania for the last four years.

Mr. BUXTON: 102.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the military attaches who are about to eon-duct an inquiry on the Albanian frontier will be instructed to visit the Albanian, as well as the Yugoslav, side of the frontier?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am not yet in a position to make a statement as to the course which the interested Governments will take.

Mr. BUXTON: Can the Under-Secretary state which Powers are taking part in the inquiry by military attaches?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

HANKOW (FOREIGN PRESS).

Mr. BENNETT: 104.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the new regulations for the government of the Special Administrative District No. 3 of Hankow, till lately the British concession, will affect the freedom of the foreign press published in this area?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Regulations contain no specific provisions directly affecting the freedom of the press.

SHANGHAI (BRITISH FORCES).

Mr. TAYLOR: 106.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the movements and dispositions of the British naval and military forces at Shanghai are in any way subject to the control and authority of the municipal council of the International Settlement?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the Under-Secretary state whether the force of White Russians is under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief of the military forces or whether it was under the control of the municipal council?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think that question arises out of the question on the Paper.

BRITISH CONCESSIONS.

Mr. LOOKER: 108.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of existing conditions in China, he will refrain from proceeding further with any negotiations which would hand over the protection of British subjects and British interests in the British concessions and foreign settlements in China to an administration which is not under British or foreign control until events have proved that they can safely be resumed?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies returned to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford on 21st March, and to my Noble Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare on 28th March.

Mr. LOOKER: Are we to understand that those replies extend to the further negotiations regarding the future of any British concessions?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend has already pointed out that we do not propose in the least to go back on our statements that we have already made to the Northern and Southern Governments, but in regard to Shanghai, we do not think the present moment is a suitable one for negotiations.

Mr. LOOKER: Are we to understand that the Department propose to proceed further with those negotiations at present about other British Concessions?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This question was very fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend a few days ago, and I really do not think I can add anything to his statement.

ANGLO-SPANISH COMMERCIAL TREATY.

Mr. BENNETT: 105.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the present position of the negotiations between Great Britain and Spain affecting the new Spanish tariff, more especially in the direction of the most-favoured-nation clauses?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have been asked to reply. The negotiations for the conclusion of a convention revising the Anglo-Spanish Commercial Treaty of 1922 have reached an advanced stage, but I am not yet in a position to make any detailed statement.

Mr. GROTRIAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the question of the export of dried fish from this country, representations concerning which have already been made to the Overseas Trade Department?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am quite sure that in the course of the negotiations all those points were considered.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what length of time those negotiations cover?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: They will extend over such period as is necessary for us to arrive at the conclusion of the negotiations.

RUSSIA (COMMINTERN AND PROFINTERN).

Sir A. KNOX: 107.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he regards the Soviet Government as responsible for the actions and utterances of the Commintern and Pro-fintern?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The ultimate responsibility for the actions and utterances of the Comintern (or Third International) and Profintern (or Red International of Labour Unions) rests with the Politbureau, the supreme committee of the Russian Communist party, which issues instructions to both of those two bodies and also to the Soviet Government. In the words of my right hon. Friend's note to Monsieur Rosengolz of the 23rd of February last, this body is "the real dominating authority in the Union."

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Member aware that the bodies mentioned in this question have, during the past few weeks, been carrying on a most active anti-
British campaign in China, and will he say when the British Foreign Office proposes to take the action contemplated in the Note of five weeks ago?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is a question on this subject down for Monday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can now state the business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall take Supply, Committee—Ministry of Labour Vote.
Tuesday: Until 8.15, further progress will be made with the Government of India (Indian Navy) Bill, and the Pacific Cable Bill; the Second Reading of the Destructive Insects and Pests Bill, and the Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Wednesday: Until 8.15, and on Thursday, we shall take the Second Reading of the Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill, and, if time permit, other Orders on the Paper.

Mr. CLYNES: Can the Prime Minister make any statement as to when we may expect the introduction of the Bill referred to in the King's Speech relating to Trade Unions, and may we have some indication of the right hon. Gentleman's intention concerning the claims of women to an extension of the franchise?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first question, the Bill dealing with Trade Unions will be in the Vote Office early next week. With regard to the second question, I have repeatedly stated in this House that I shall make a statement before we rise for the Easter Recess on that subject, and I have nothing to add to that.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 104.

Division No. 70.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Albery, Irving James
Goff, Sir Park
O'Connor, T J. (Bedford, Luton)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gower, Sir Robert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grace, John
Penny, Frederick George


Apsley, Lord
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Perring, Sir William George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. R. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, W. p. Crawford
Philipson, Mabel


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greenwood, Rt.Hn.Sir H.(W'th's'w, E.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Radford, E. A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raine, W.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hali, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Ramsden, E.


Bennett, A. J.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham(Warrington)


Berry, Sir George
Hammersley, S. S.
Remnant, sir James


Better-ton, Henry B.
Harland, A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A U.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hartington. Marquess of
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hawke, John Anthony
Ropner, Major L.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henderson, Capt, R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brass, Captain W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V, L. (Bootle)
Salmon, Major I.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Briggs, J. Harold
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Herbert,S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Sandon, Lord


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Buckingham, sir H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sheffield, sir Berkeley


Bullock, Captain M.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)


Burman, J. B.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Skelton, A. N.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smithers, Waldron


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Huntingfield, Lord
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Storry-Deans, R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jacob, A. E.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn,SirJ.A.(Birm.,W.)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Chapman, Sir S.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Clayton, G. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Templeton, W. P.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cooper, A. Duff
Locker- Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cope, Major William
Loder, I. de V.
Tinne, J. A.


Couper, J. B.
Looker, Herbert William
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wallace, Captain O. E.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lumley, L. R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macintyre, I.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Cavies, Dr. Vernon
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Watts, Dr. T.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macquisten, F. A.
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Williams, Com. (Devon, Torquay)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


England, Colonel A.
Malone, Major P. B.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Margesson, Captain D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wolmer, viscount


Fermoy, Lord
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Womersley, W, J.


Fielden, E. B.
Mitched, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Finburgh, S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)


Forrest, W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)



Ganzoni, Sir John
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gates, Percy
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Barnston.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Harney, E, A.
Scurr, John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bondfield, Margaret
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sneil, Harry


Briant, Frank
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Lindley, F. W.
Strauss, E. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Lunn, William
Taylor, R. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Mackinder, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Compton, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Connolly, M.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Maxton, James
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Montague, Frederick
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Morris, R. H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Mosley, Oswald
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
Owen, Major G.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gardner, J. p.
Palin, John Henry
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Westwood, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tyovil)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elrand)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H.
Whiteley.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL [Lords.]

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee,) to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to life upon the Table, and to be printed.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Robert Sanders to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Cinematograph Films

Bill); and Mr. James Brown to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Captain Arthur Hope and Captain Waterhouse; and had appointed in substitution: Commander Cochrane and Sir Frederick Rice.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Clayton and Major Ropner; and had appointed in substitution: Viscountess Astor and Captain Waterhouse.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

OUSE DRAINAGE BILL,

"to make provision for the better drainage of the area drained by the River Out and its tributaries; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. GUINNESS; supported by Mr. McNeill; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 1.09.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1927.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Orders of the Day — TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House regrets that the telephone service is not conducted by private enterprise, and considers that steps should be taken to provide improved postal and telephone facilities in rural areas.
Before I deal with the terms of this Amendment, I wish to draw the attention of the House and of the Postmaster-General to a question in connection with the administration of the Post Office which I regard as one of great importance. I notice, from the last Return published, that the number of disabled ex-service men employed by the Post Office is smaller than the number employed in any of the other Government Departments, with the exception of the Admiralty. I know that in the case of the Admiralty there are special reasons, as we were told yesterday. But I hope the Postmaster-General will be able to give this matter favourable consideration, and to see that a greater number of ex-service men shall be employed by his Department. There are a great many jobs under his jurisdiction which can be done both by disabled ex-service men and by sound ex-service men. In the case of postmen, I believe the Postmaster-General employs 50 per cent. of ex-service men. I think that that proportion should be increased to 75 per cent., and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to see his way to do this. I might enlarge on this question, but I am not sure whether I should be in order. I should like, however, to draw attention to it.
In what I propose to say on the Amendment, I hope the House will forgive me if I refer to certain specific cases which
have occurred in my constituency, and as to which I should like the Postmaster-General to make inquiries. They are, in my opinion, not isolated cases, but cases typical of what is going on all over the country, and I think my right hon. Friend will see that, if he is able to put these cases right, he will be able to put right similar cases in other places. The cases may be of purely local interest, but as there are many other cases of the same sort, I think it is worth while my mentioning them. As regards the postal services, I do not think we have very much to complain of; on the whole, I think they are pretty good. We should, of course, like to see a considerable increase in the number of second posts, but I fully realise that, in country districts, the expense of increasing the number of places where second pasts are received would be too great. having regard to the value that would be got from them. I think, however, that the Postmaster-General might be able to extend the system by which a second post is delivered at rural offices, but not sent round to individual houses. In some cases the second post is sent to the post office, and people who wish to make sure of receiving their letters can send to the post office in the afternoon or evening and get them. If they do not send, the letters are delivered in the ordinary way the following morning. If this could be extended, it might be found to be well worth doing.
4.0 p.m.
Another slight difficulty from which we suffer is that in a great many places there is no post out between mid-day on Saturday and 4 or 5 o'clock on Monday afternoon. This is because the local postman is given a Saturday half-holiday, and it is right that this man should have a half-holiday. He is a very hard worked man. He often has to walk 12 or 15 miles in the day, and he is frequently away from home 12 hours or more. Therefore, if any man be entitled to a half-holiday the local postman most certainly deserves it. This difficulty of not being able to get our letters off on Saturday afternoon might be got over by employing some reliable young man with a motor bicycle to go round and collect the letters. I believe it would be possible to find some really reliable young men who own motor bicycles and who would be willing to do this work for some small payment, say
6d. per mile, and it would be of considerable advantage to us if it could be done.
We are getting now some little way from the War, but there are cases in my constituency where I know that the pre-war postal facilities have not yet been restored. It is quite time that those facilities were restored. I might mention one instance. In a district near Uffculme in pre-War days the post went out at 7 o'clock in the evening, but it now goes out at 5 o'clock. That means that a farmer who has been to market or to the county town on private or county business cannot get home again in time to post his letters, and therefore he loses a day's post. I hope that it will be possible to restore these facilities. In this same district, there is another difficulty which might very easily be adjusted. It is a matter of local adjustment. There has been correspondence going on now for over two years between the parish council and the local postal authorities on the subject, and nothing has been done. There is a group of houses and a farm that do not receive their letters until 11 o'clock in the morning, whereas two fields away, not more than 400 or £00 yards distant, another farm receive their letters at 7.30 in the morning. This is because in one ease the post comes from Burles-comb and in the other from Uffculme. That is a thing which could be easily adjusted by the local postal authorities by putting this group of houses into another postal area, and I hope that the Postmaster-General will see that it is done.
As my right hon. Friend knows, both the. postal and telephone services at Burles-comb are far from satisfactory. Our chief complaint, however, is not on the subject of the postal services, but on the subject of the telephone service. I believe that this House has never yet refused to vote any money required for the development of the telephone service. I believe that during the last four financial years the telephone service has produced a profit of £3,600,000, after allowing for depreciation and for interest on the money. I know that at the present time the House has voted the Postmaster-General a sum of £1,000,000 per month for the development of the telephone service. I am afraid that we in
the country districts do not get our full share of that £1,000,000 per month. I am afraid it is used more for the development of the telephone service in the towns, and such things as the telephone service between here and America, which may be very desirable, but which does not benefit the people in the country districts very much. There is not the least doubt that it is really more important that the telephone service should be developed in the country districts than in the towns. The isolated country districts require these facilities more than people living in the towns, and, by increasing these facilities there and giving more telephone communication, you will encourage people to go and live in the country districts, which is a thing that everyone in this House desires to see.
Unfortunately, the telephone is a rich mans luxury, but it ought not to be so. It ought to be cheap, so that it could be placed within the reach of everybody. The best way of cheapening the telephone is by increasing the number of people who use it, and the best way of increasing the number of people who use it is by cheapening it. It is up to the Postmaster-General to start this circle by doing everything he can to reduce the telephone charges and to make them lower so as to bring the telephone within the means of all classes of the community. As an example, I might mention that in Canada the cost of the telephone is about one quarter what it is in this country and that, according to an answer which the Postmaster-General gave to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb) about a week ago, the number of users in Canada is four times the number of users in this country. That shows how by cheapening the rate you will be able to increase the number of users. The charges for the telephone are not only too high, but in many cases they are also unfair and want adjusting. I should like to take another case in my constituency. There is a place called Whimple. I do not suppose that many hon. Members have heard of Whimple, but I expect that most of them have drunk the cider which is made there and which is very good. The telephone charge from Whimple to Exeter, a distance of eight miles, is 5d., which is higher than the charge from another place not in my constituency, Honiton, which is 16 miles from Exeter, and the
line from Honiton runs within quite a short distance of Whimple. That, obviously, is ridiculous, and requires to be adjusted. There is another grievance so far as farmers are concerned. There are two different rates, one for business houses, and one for private houses. Farmers are charged on the higher of these two rates. That is quite wrong, and I hope that the Postmaster-General will change it and charge them on the lower rate. That would mean a difference of 7s. 6d. per quarter, which is worth having, and it would encourage more farmers to take the telephone.
The trouble is that the postmaster-General is afraid to take risks in regard to the telephone. He fails to realise that the supply of the telephone will make the demand. He waits for the demand to come before he gives the supply. It ought to be the other way round. He ought to give the supply, because there is not the least doubt that the demand will follow. There is a rule to which he sticks too closely. He will not supply an exchange unless there are eight guaranteed subscribers. That rule ought to be relaxed in any place where there is a prospect of the telephone becoming a paying concern within a reasonable time. I know the case—I need not mention the name—of a place with 700 inhabitants, and he refuses to supply the telephone because there are only six guaranteed subscribers. If an exchange were placed there, it would serve not only that village but two other villages, giving a population of about 1,000. There are, on the average, 33 subscribers to every 1,000 people, so that if a telephone exchange were put there the probability is that in a short time, instead of six subscribers, there would be 33. That is the sort of enterprise which the tight hon. Gentleman ought to undertake. Any private concern would do it. Take the case of the multiple shops. They do not wait until they are certain of having a paying concern before they start in a village or town. They plant a shop in a place where they think it will become a paying concern in a few years time, and, until it does become a paying concern, the loss is borne by the other shops which are paying. If this can be done by a private concern, if this can be done by a dividend-producing concern, it ought to be done by a public service, which is not
primarily run to produce money. The telephone service ought to be run for the convenience of the country and not with the idea of producing money and relieving other taxpayers.
The Post Office ought to advertise its wares, and it ought to advertise them in and attractive manner. At the present time, if you ask for the telephone or how it can be got, you are given a form which explains it all but it takes you about half-an-hour before you can understand what it means, and it takes you another half-hour to work out a complicated sum to find out how much it will cost you, and then probably you are wrong. It ought to be put quite simply and clearly, so that any farmer or anybody who wants the telephone can see at once the advantage he would get and see also what it would be likely to cost him. Anyone who applies for the telephone in a new undeveloped district ought to be given every encouragement. It would be worth while to give the pioneers of the telephone in a new undeveloped district preferential treatment by allowing them to have it cheaper for a few years. Such applicants ought to be encouraged in every possible way.
The best advertisement which the telephone or any business can have is that it should have a thoroughly satisfied number of clients, and any new man applying for the telephone in an undeveloped district ought to be used as a decoy duck. At the present time, so many difficulties and complications are put in his way that, instead of him acting as a decoy duck, he acts as a scarecrow, and discourages other possible applicants. That is not the right system on which to develop the telephone. The fact that the telephone can be extended by means of ordinary commercial methods was shown very clearly by what happened at the Ideal Homes Exhibition a short time ago. The Telephone Development Association had a room there is order to encourage the use of the telephone, and, as a result, 115 people signed agreements to take the telephone and 230 people in addition left their names and addresses in order to be interviewed by Post Office officials with a view to taking it. That shows how by a little careful advertising the use of the telephone can be extended.
I should like to see an extension of the system by which private lines can be put
on to places where there is at present a call office. In some places where there is a call office, it is possible for what I believe is called a single subscriber exchange to be formed. It means that there is a sort of small exchange formed in the village in which the call office exists, and it is run by the post mistress of the village and can be easily run by her. This is only possible when a village is on a circuit by itself. In some cases there are five or six villages on the same circuit, and it cannot be done. I believe that without any great expense it would be possible to put a large number of these villages on a. single circuit, and the extra expense would be more than paid for by the three or four subscribers who would take private lines from these local call offices.
The Postmaster-General ought to aim at trying to get 'exchanges in as many villages as possible. He ought to aim at getting call offices in practically every village and at practically every railway station. It is of very great importance to farmers that they should be able to communicate quickly with railway stations, and it would also be of considerable advantage to the railway companies, because it would mean in many cases that they would get their trucks cleared 24 or even 48 hours earlier than they do at present. It would save delay, as very often the post arrives too late for the farmer to send to the station the same day he receives the letter, whereas if he used the telephone he could send off the same day. In respect to the carriage of live stock, it would often save him going to the station, perhaps a considerable distance, two or three times in the same day to meet the train on which he hopes it will arrive, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do all he possibly can to make call offices available at as many stations as possible and at any rate every station at which there is an exchange in the neighbouring town.
One slight trouble about village call offices is that there is no privacy. The call telephone is probably put in a village shop or the post office. In many cases there is no room in the office for a private box to be installed but it would not cost a very great deal to put a kiosk just outside in which you could telephone with comparative privacy. In my own post
office, there is a private box but there are two telephones, one inside the box and the other outside. The one inside the box is supposed to be reserved for the use of the post-mistress and the one outside is for the public. If it is necessary to have two instruments in one post office the public ought to have the advantage of using the one which is in comparative privacy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will secure as much privacy as he can in call offices.
In conclusion, may I say that I am sure he wishes to improve the telephone and postal services in our villages in every way he can and I hope he will be able to do more than he has done. I should like to thank him and the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Parliamentary Private Secretary for the very kind way in which they have met every case I have put before them. No one could have met me in a better or more helpful way than they have done. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this question of the telephone service in country districts is causing a great deal of interest. People are beginning to want to have the use of the telephone, and if he will hasten the supply of call offices and exchanges in the villages he will receive the gratitude of the people who live in the country. Money so expended will not be wasted. It will be an investment, and a good one, which will bring back a reasonable return. I hope he will be able to tell us he is going to go forward with a steady progressive development in country districts, and that we shall see a great improvement in a very short time, and I hope he will not allow himself to be handicapped by the Treasury.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. and gallant Friend has not said anything about the first part of the Amendment regretting that the telephone service is not conducted by private enterprise, but I am not going to run away from that part of it. I believe if it had not been for the Government—I do not say the Post Office—having taken it over we should have had a very much more efficient service than we are getting at present both in town and in the country. A very instructive answer was given to my hon. Friend the Member for
Stone (Mr. Lamb) with regard to the use of the telephone in our Dominions and in foreign countries. The figures were, for the United States 150 per thousand, Canada 130 and so on, and Great Britain 31. In the United States and in Canada they are run by private enterprise, and they have developed much more than under our State run service. I believe Denmark is high up in the list with 96 per thousand, and New Zealand, which I believe is run by private enterprise, 94. In Sweden some people only have a half time service—12 hours instead of 24. I should like a little more information on these details as regards private enterprise or State management in the countries mentioned in this question. In reply to a later question he said that on 31st January Great Britain had increased from 31 to 33 per thousand, but he could not give the figures for other countries. There is a company in British Columbia which gives these figures in a quarterly journal. We are always told of the difficulty and expense of the development of the service in rural districts. It must be far more difficult in Canada, but their figures show an increase of 7.1 per cent. for 1926 as against our increase from 31 to 33 per thousand in two years. I think that shows clearly that our telephones are carried on in a very unenterprising way, and it is time they bucked up, especially in the rural districts.
Another drawback I am always met with when I ask why we cannot have more telephones in rural areas is that the Treasury will not let them have the money. That is another disadvantage of State management. A private company chooses the time and the opportunity and goes to the public and borrows the money when it is cheapest and most businesslike to do so Here, if the Post Office sees a chance to extend the service it is blocked by the Treasury, which says we cannot afford it. That is one of the reasons why private enterprise always beats State management. There is another point in which the telephone service is more badly run in this country. I do not want to boom the Canadian Company and it may be giving my right hon. Friend a chance to get something back on what I have said, but the whole object of advertisement is to make people pay attention and get money from them. Among other things, there are chatty
little articles in this quarterly magazine and some rather tall stories. There is one about pheasant shooting which is rather pleasant reading. It says that when game is missed by one gun it is possible to send a message by telephone to another shooter to be on his guard. Another little story is that a recent theatrical dispute was settled between New York and San Francisco by two people talking to each other continuously for five and a- quarter hours. Notwithstanding all these tall stories it is very good advertisement. No people look after their employes better than these companies in our Colonies, they place the whole facts on the table and, in addition, they pay very satisfactory dividends.
I wish to enforce what my hon. and gallant Friend has said about the necessity of farmers having telephones. The railway companies have approached the Postmaster-Generals of both Governments to help in patting up telephones at their railway stations in rural districts. It is absurd to wait till business comes. The only way is to go out and get the farmers to join so as to make it pay. I should like to offer a few words of thanks to the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General. It is not their fault that we cannot get these things, but it is the fault of the system and of State management instead of private enterprise. I know they realise the necessity of opening up the country districts if they had the money. I have brought several cases to their notice lately. Putting telephone kiosks round new and growing towns will do more to aid the development of rural life and the amenities of the people who live in the villages and towns than anything else they can do.

Mr. AMMON: The House, I am sure, was very interested in noticing the difficulty which the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment experienced in fathering it. Although they made some measure of attack on the postal and telephone system, they concluded with words of eulogium upon and congratulation to the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General, assuring them that the Amendment was in no sense an attack upon them. Thereby, they were, in anticipation, looking for the castigation that must surely await them later on. What really emerges from the De-
bate is that it is not so much that they have any real complaint about the system itself, but that their Amendment is an attack, on the part of those who are in favour of private enterprise, on a service simply because it happens to be publicly owned and controlled. That, evidently, is the whole gamut and gravamen of the charge.

Brigadier-General BROWN: And because it is inefficient.

Mr. AMMON: I will endeavour, later, to deal with some of the points that have been raised by the two hon. and gallant Members. The curious position now put before us is that, to some extent, the Postmaster-General and I will be found to be working in harmony. That will dispose of some of the accusations that are occasionally brought against trade unions and their officials, that they are not concerned about the industry so much as regards its efficient working and the service which it gives to the public. Before coming to the particular points raised by the Mover and Seconder, it would be well for the House to bear in mind what was the position before the Post Office took over the telephone service. I do not think we need pay serious attention to any suggestion that the Post Office as such should be under private enterprise. I imagine that it is mostly the telephone service that concerns the Mover and Seconder. It is well to bear in mind that the telephone service came under the control of the State, directly, in 1912. It came under the control of the State in response to a very widespread agitation, due to the inefficiency and incapacity of the telephone company to meet the private needs which were demanded of them. After considerable discussion and investigation by a Committee of inquiry set up by this House, it was decided that the State should take control. It is well to remember that an attempt was made to get a very large and inflated price for the stock and goodwill of the company. On that matter being submitted to arbitration, a considerably less amount was awarded by the arbitrators than was claimed by the company. When the State had acquired the plant of the National Telephone Company it was found that the plant had so deteriorated and was so inefficient and
so utterly useless to meet the then needs of the telephone service that £8,000,000 had to be expended in order to make it work even along barely efficient lines. That is one of the comments we may make in regard to the service that was then given by the private company.
It was arising out of the particular provisions which had been referred to in this House again and again, that the Committee was appointed, on the initiative of the father of Captain Wedgwood Benn, who until recently graced the benches behind us. In March, 1895, it was resolved:
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the proposed draft agreement between the Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company, and report with reference to the monopoly which may thereby be created; the granting of telephone licences to municipalities, and generally on the future policy of the Post Office with reference to the extension of the telephone service.
The result of this investigation was to bear out all that had been said with regard to the inefficeney of the private telephone company, and to hand over the system to State control and ownership. If anything could emphasise the value of the telephone system being under State control, it was the fact of the valuable service rendered by the telephones, and the telephone staff during the War. The service received the encomiums of all concerned. Perhaps there could be no stronger argument that could be brought forward of the need for such a service being directly under the control of the State.
I was interested to hear both the hon. and gallant Members make a comparison, an invidious comparison, I think, between the telephone system in this country and the telephone systems in the United States and other countries. The comparison with the "United States is interesting because, curiously enough, the people of the United States who are mainly responsible for the organisation of the telephone service there, do not concur in the opinions expressed by the two hon. Members. In 1915, when I was in the employ of the Post Office, it was my pleasurable duty to make an unofficial inquiry and to travel across the United States and present a more or less informal unofficial report to the Postmaster-General at that time. Sir Herbert
Samuel. The result of my inquiries and investigations from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast was, undoubtedly, to emphasise the fact that as far as the efficiency of the service was concerned, this country had nothing to learn from the United States of America.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I did not say a single word against the efficiency of the service in this country. My object was to draw attention to the conditions in the rural districts. I am not one of those who are always com plaining about getting wrong numbers. I believe the efficiency of the service, generally speaking, is. very good.

Mr. AMMON: I am glad the hon. and gallant Member has dissociated himself from the remarks of the Seconder, who interrupted me and pointed out that he was concerned with the inefficiency of the service. It is with that point that I wish to deal. We have narrowed down the attack now and have divided the opposition by 50 per cent. The mere fact that there is a larger number of users of the telephone in other countries does not indicate that the service is better. Many considerations enter into that. Take the case of the United States. In the first place, there is a tremendous difference in population. A further consideration is the difference in the standard of living. One might just as well argue in regard to America and this country the question of motor cars. In America, the bulk of the working people use motor cares simply because their means enable them to do so. I have not the slightest doubt that the worker in this country would be equally willing and delighted to do that, and the householder would be glad to have a telephone if he could afford it. The hon. and gallant Members are arguing on false premises, and that does not establish the case against the telephone.
I was interested in taming up a reference by a distinguished visitor to this country from the United States in 1923. He came over to inquire into the postal, telephone and telegraph service in this country and to see whether the United States had anything to learn from us. I commend to the Postmaster-General that side of the organisation of the Post Office. It would be well to keep our people continually in touch with other countries and to see whether we can
learn anything from them, towards improving our service. Mr. Eugene White, the assistant to the Postmaster-General of the United States, who visited this country said, in the course of his remarks about our system:
Your postal and telegraph system are as near perfect as can be, and as for your telephone work, America has nothing to teach you.
Modesty is not one of the strong points of America, and when we get such a good unsolicited testimonial from the United States, I think the Postmaster-General need not be very much disturbed in his bed as to any criticism that may come. Here is a testimony from a person who was sent to make inquiries, and his testimony says that so far as this service is concerned, America is certainly not to be taken as the standard whereby we should be judged. One is pleased to note that the testimonials are not confined only to visitors who have come from another country. For instance, in the "Manchester Guardian" of the 13th January,, 1925, there was published a resolution passed by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, a business body of no small importance and one which speaks with a certain amount of authority. The resolution said:
The Telegraph and Telephone Advisory Committee of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce has reported to the Chamber on the meeting held between the Committee and the Postmaster of Manchester and the district manager of the telephones. The report emphasises the close association which exists between the officials and the Chamber, and says, "There is little doubt that the Manchester organisations are extremely efficient and are fulfilling their duties to the public in an admirable manner.'
That is a fairly high testimonial to come from business men with business experience.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Have you any testimonials of that sort from rural districts?

Mr. AMMON: If my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to go on, I will endeavour to meet him in every way. That testimonial indicates that the Post Office is free from a good deal of the criticisms which have been levelled against it, and I believe it is because trade unionism has flown through its departments for so many years and has brought them into contact with the wider
world and with a bigger understanding of the needs of the people. In this respect, however much we may differ in other ways, the Postmaster-General will not deny that the unions have always tried to co-operate with the Department in endeavouring to make the service as efficient as possible. There is another testimonial, from a gentleman whose name carries some weight in the business world. It is from Mr. Gordon Selfridge, the head of a big store in this country. Talking about comparisons between the telephone service in this country and foreign countries, he says:
These comparisons are usually ill-informed and dictated largely by the desire to discredit State enterprise.
That was the intention of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment.
America is often held up as an example of efficiency under private enterprise, but the criticism by Americans of their own service is just as strong and persistent as criticism here.
Mr. Gordon Selfridge has expressed his opinion on the superiority of the British telephones in unambiguous terms:
we have had experience of systems both in America and on the Continent, of systems controlled both privately and by the State, and without the slightest hesitation do we award the palm for all round satisfactoriness to the telephones of London. Those who have been to Paris know how poor telephones can be: those who have been to Now York get some idea of the ' boosting ' capacity of the American when they hear him compare the system there with here.
The Seconder of the Amendment seemed concerned with the question of boosting more than anything else. He wanted the Postmaster-General to take a leaf out of the book of another country and to go in for boosting.

Brigadier-General BROWN: The figures which I quoted went to prove that there was greater development.

Mr. AMMON: Hon. Members will remember that the hon. and gallant Member gave some interesting quotations with reference to certain things, which he said might not be true but which were used for boosting the system. He wants us to copy that and to go in for boosting. What we want to maintain is an efficient service rather than a service which depends upon boosting. Mr. Gordon Selfridge continues:
In their own typically British manner, without paying too much attention to newspaper stories of inefficiency (so valuable to the news editor when people will simply not get murdered), certainly without any public boasting of the difficulties they have overcome, and the enterprise they have shown, those in control at the General Post Office have produced a telephone system that for general efficiency is second to none.
I congratulate the Postmaster-General on these unsolicited testimonials from sources which are not ex-parte.

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the hon. Member tell the House whether there is any truth in the rumour that Mr. Gordon Selfridge once made an attempt to take over the Post Office as a private enterprise, and as a sideline to his own business?

Mr. AMMON: I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General will be better able to reply to that than J am. That hardly falls to my side of the Table. Anyway, if so, Mr. Gordon Selfridge has certainly been doing his best to write up the stock, and make the price he would have to pay for it pretty high if he were to take it over. So that the Postmaster-General would be sure of a very good deal in (hat respect, and that is the highest testimonial one can give to the good work and efficiency of a public enterprise as compared with a private enterprise. Certainly whatever may be said with regard to any other Service, on no grounds can there be any sort of comparison, except a very odious one, between the telephone system as controlled and administered by State enterprise, and that of private enterprise in the days gone by. It is interesting and refreshing to fine so strong an individualist as the Postmaster-General being pushed into the position of having to defend this State enterprise, and to show that it is giving as good a service as can possibly and reasonably be expected. It is not my business or my concern to defend or to have anything to say as far as the organisation of the Service is concerned. That, naturally, is the duty of the Postmaster-General himself. I am concerned, of course, with the well-being and the working conditions of those engaged in it, and with the desire that the Service should be as efficient as possible, it being the duty of all in the Service to do their utmost to make it as efficient as they possibly can, and they, in return, have the right to expect the best possible
remuneration for the duties discharged. The Mover of the Amendment made several references, which I heard indistinctly, but which, I gathered, were proposals that the Postmaster-General should do something that would increase, in some way or other, the number of casual or temporary employes in the Post Office.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: One of my suggestions would have that effect.

Mr. AMMON: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give further thought to what that means. It would reintroduce into the Post Office a system of working that we hope has long since disappeared. For many years that had to be fought, because there were numbers of men in the employ of the State who came in for part-time employment and received remuneration that did not afford them a proper means of livelihood, which reflected on the State and even laid the State open to grave danger from dishonesty, and so forth. Anything of that kind, therefore, must be resisted not only in the public interest, but also in the interest of those who would be likely to surfer thereby. I feel sure the hon. and gallant Member did not think that out fully in all its implications before he made any such proposal. I want also to point out to him one effect of another suggestion of his, that the number of disabled men in the Service should be increased. I want it to be distinctly understood that I am not saying a word against the employment of disabled men in the Service, but I would point out the effect of that suggestion. Complaint is made again and again in this House, not without cause, of the rising tide of charges and costs of the various Services. Hon. Members must not forget that a very large part of that increase is because of the discharging of duty and obligations to ex-service men in this respect. I believe the Post Office has exceeded the quota allotted to it. The effect of that is, that through no fault of their own, these men are not quite able to give all the service, and as full and efficient service, as a man who is not disabled or in any way prevented from rendering his work, so that you have to employ a larger number of men and there is a higher wage bill owing to the higher age of entry into the service. That in itself imposes an additional burden upon the Department which has to make
up the cost. I am not saying a word against that beyond this, that you cannot have it both ways. It is no good attacking the Government—whatever Government it is—or the Departments because of the rise in the cost of wages, and then attack them because they do not do certain things which are bound to increase those charges. That would be the effect of the hon. and gallant Member's proposal, as it is already the effect in the various Departments.

Mr. SPEAKER: I had better make it clear that, although the hon. and gallant Member was quite in Order in referring to this question, he was in Order because he was then speaking on the Main Question. Once that Amendment has been moved and seconded, and is before the House, the Debate must be confined to the Amendment. It does not cover the point about ex-service men.

Mr. AMMON: I, of course, bow to your ruling at once, but I would point out, with every respect, that the Amendment does refer to the efficiency of the service itself. The employment of disabled men does have relationship to the service rendered. However, I will leave the point, having dealt with it quite sufficiently.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: May I refer to one point on the question of the ex-service men?

Mr. SPEAKER: No; it is now excluded.

Mr. AMMON: There are two or three points on which I am in cordial agreement with the Mover and Seconder, and wish to reinforce their statements. I hope that when they talk about the need for further advertising they will support the demands I have recently made upon the Postmaster-General. The thing to advertise still more is the cash-on-delivery system, in order that it shall be known throughout the length and breadth of the country, so that people may take the fullest advantage of the system. I think this is germane to the discussion, as it is part of the enterprise of the Post Office, and for the moment one would point out that again and again complaints are coming in from business people that little or nothing is known of this system. If one looks up the Debate that took place, it largely centred round the help that the system might give to small-
holders and people carrying on a certain amount of agricultural work. It is not an exaggeration to say that this system is hardly yet known in the country and among the smallholders, and it is the Postmaster-General's duty to do all he can to advertise that system, to insist on advertising it just as he did the telephone system by a cancelling stamp on letters, with the words, "Say it by Telephone." In the same way, he should now say "Send it by Cash-on-Delivery," and so bring it home to every house. It does not lie in the mouth of the Postmaster-General to reply to me, as he did the other day, that it is not his business to support any particular system. It is his business to make his Department as efficient as possible, and to attract as much revenue and trade in his particular Department as possible. In that respect I find myself in whole-hearted agreement with the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, and I hope the Post Office will spend more money in advertising both their telephone service and the cash-on-delivery system. I do not know bow far the Post Office can accelerate the meeting of telephone orders by placing with outside firms the making of those telephones. There is a demand there that they could meet, and if that is one of the difficulties standing in the way of the Postmaster-General, I sincerely hope he will look into it and endeavour to meet that as far as he possibly can.
I do not think anybody will seriously stand up in this House and support the contention that the telephone system would be better under private enterprise. I think that was put in the Amendment to add a little spice to it. But there may be some grounds for complaint—the Postmaster-General can say better than I can—that the demand for rural telephones has not been adequately met. I do not know how far that may be due to the usual conservatism—I do not mean in the political sense—of the farmer. To put up a stone-wall attitude with regard to the party line system shows how utterly useless it is to quote Canada in this connection, for there the party line system is wholly in use, and there is co-operation in making it a success. But here we get nothing but stone-wall obstinacy with regard to it. The conditions in Canada are in no way com-
parable, having regard to the large tracts of country, the size of farms and so forth, but certainly, if it comes down to the number of telephones in rural districts, I think that might very largely be met if our own farmers were as willing to co-operate with the Post Office in this particular respect. It is interesting to learn that in 1892 when the question of the taking over of the telephones was being discussed in this House Sir James Fergusson then Postmaster-General, stated that the difficulty which a political body would experience in resisting the demands for unprofitable extensions of the telephone service was an important reason why the State should not take over the entire telephone service. That places Sir James Ferguson among the prophets.
I was interested to hear from the hon. and gallant Member the suggestion that the first duty of the State service is service rather than profit. That, of course, is always the point of view that is put forward on behalf of private enterprise. We hope that is going to be extended more and more to all forms of industry as we develop still further, and here we have a demand from the Conservative party that we should increase the number of telephones and extend the service, even although it may mean that we reduce the profits so far as the cash side is concerned. That is not my affair; it is the affair of the Postmaster-General, but I do call the House to witness that it is, perhaps, one of the best testimonials we can have for public ownership and public service, that here we have at once the demand that the first duty is the public service, and that that is being discharged as far as lies in the power of the Postmaster-General.
It is impossible, I submit, to make out any case for a return to private enterprise in the postal or telephone service. Some of the proposals that are suggested by the Mover would only result in worsening the hours and conditions of employes and give very small benefit, if any, to the community itself; but I hope that, as a result of this discussion, the Postmaster-General will use his powers of advertising still more and make the service more widely known to the public, and that, with the co-operation of this House, and as a result of
this discussion, the service may be more efficient than it has been hitherto to the community as a whole.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I desire to say a few words on the postal and telephone facilities in rural districts only; I will leave the rest of the discussion to other hon. Members. Those of us who represent rural constituencies were fortunate in listening to the speech delivered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte). We are all agreed that he covered the case for the rural districts clearly and admirably, and consequently my speech will be very short indeed. I agree with him that the profits of the Post Office should really not go back to the general fund but should go back to the Post Office itself in a more efficient service. It is an extraordinary thing to consider that we have not yet got back in the rural districts to pre-war postal facilities. I have recently sent two or three cases to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, who is always so courteous and so anxious to help. I should like to pay him that tribute. I have sent him quite recently two or three cases. I suggest that the rural districts should have the same postal facilities as they had before the War. I am perfectly certain that anybody who knows the country districts knows the value of the rural postmen. If hon. Members consider the isolation and the distance of the rural districts away from the madding crowd, they will realise that the arrival of the postman is the event of the day. He brings news from the various localities and he brings what is much more important, news of their relatives and friends from other parts of the country. In saying this, I am expressing the views not only of my own constituency, but of all other rural parts of the country.
Let me say a word or two about rural telephones. I quite agree with every word said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown). There is no doubt that the coming system of communicatibn of information is the telephone in this country. I would beg my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to reconsider his attitude to-
wards the minimum number of subscribers. I know heaps of people in the North of Scotland who would willingly become subscribers, but they cannot get more than five or six people to take the service. The farmer is beginning to realise the value of the telephone as a commercial asset. He knows perfectly well that it is the most efficient way of getting direct information from the market town as to the prospects in regard to the sale of certain of bra stock and other produce. If good telephonic communication existed between the marketing town and the farmer, it would save the farmer no end of trouble. It would keep him in close personal touch with events in the country market town, or in other towns with which he had business. In many parts it is impossible to get more than four or five subscribers. My right hon. Friend must also remember this, as I think was indicated in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton, that people in the country districts are very conservative. Many people I could mention regard the telephone still as a very uncanny instrument. You have only to bring it to their notice and show them how useful it could be to make them become users of it. That, surely, is what the Post Office wants. The Post Office wants a good telephonic system all over the country, and the more telephones are used the better it becomes for all concerned. My hon. and gallant Friend said he wanted cheapness. I have reason to know that what has been said in regard to Canada is perfectly correct, and there is no reason why we should not have as popular a telephonie system in this country as exists in any part of the world. I have sent two or three cases quite recently to my right hon. Friend. I would refer to one case in particular, the case of Garve, which is at the end of the railway, and from Garve right through to the West Coast of Scotland there is no telephonic communication of any sort: My right hon. Friend should realise what that means. There is no chance to get a doctor in those isolated districts, and there is no chance of getting in touch with any human being except by an occasional motor car. The right hon. Gentleman ought not only to consider part of the country, but he ought to consider
all the rural districts and make the telephonic system as efficient as he possibly can.

Captain R. HENDERSON: I rise to make what I hope will be a practical suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General with a view to assisting telephones in rural areas. I am aware that the Postmaster-General usually receives more criticisms than compliments in this regard, but I should like to congratulate him on the great improvements which he has effected in the telephone service in rural areas. In the rural areas around Oxford that is largely due to the fact that he has recently converted the City of Oxford to the automatic exchange, and I would suggest to him, in view of the remarkable improvements that have come to the telephone service within that city area from the automatic system, that he should consider whether he could not possibly see his way to utilising the automatic exchange for direct connection with the rural exchanges. The situation there is one which I am sure he will find in a great many other parts of the country; a large city surrounded by a ring of small country exchanges, ranging from eight to 20 subscribers. Ninety-nine per cent. of the telephone messages have to go through the main city. I would like to bring this point to his notice, and I believe it is one that will have a practical commercial reality. If he calculates the economy that may result in savings on all these small exchanges, and if he balances that against the cost of connecting the country lines right through, connecting them direct on the automatic exchange, he will have a greatly improved and more efficient telephone system.
There is one other suggestion which I should like to make to the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) said that we should advertise the cash-on-delivery system and said that it was not used as much as it might be. I can quite endorse that, but it is going to catch on, and a great many people are really beginning to ask about it. There is one difficulty which has cropped up, and it is that there are limits to the carrying capacity of the unfortunate
country postman. I would suggest that the Postmaster-General should consider whether a more extended use might not be made of the motor tricycles that the Post Office are using in some parts. It is very difficult to get the cash-on-delivery parcels despatched by the first post out in the day, but I think that the second post out amply meets requirements. The expert advisers of the right hon. Gentleman are more competent to deal with this matter than I am, but I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether he should not issue more motor tricycles to be used with carriers for those postmen who are travailing through several villages to take parcels out by the second post. I throw out that suggestion for what it is worth. There is one other point that I should like to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. One of the greatest difficulties in getting the telephone extended to the country is the opposition of country postmasters and country postmistresses to it. I have recently found myself being in the position of acting as a temporary commercial traveller for the Post Office and endeavouring to get a local exchange formed by one's own neighbours and friends. I would point out to the Postmaster General that no support towards this is given on the part of the country post office. As the previous speaker said, the telephone is still regarded as a very uncanny thing in many parts of the country. It gives a great deal of trouble to the country post office, and the idea is that the extra remuneration granted for it is not adequate to meet the trouble involved. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to make direct communication with the main exchanges, I think that in itself would lead to a very large extension in the number of the subscribers in the country areas.

Mr. BECKETT: I listened to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution with very great interest, because they seemed to have decided upon a mutually pleasurable division of labour. The hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton complained somewhat bitterly about the lack of enterprise and the lack of willingness to spend money which the Postmaster-General and his Department were showing in regard to the extension of the telephones to rural areas. No
sooner had he sat down than his confederate in this Amendment rose and appealed to the House to let us have private enterprise in the telephone service in order that; the two mutually contradictory objects of this Amendment might be balanced. I have yet to hear a speaker in this House who will suggest. that the extension of the telephones to rural areas—with which I am heartily in agreement—is likely to prove an immediately strikingly profitable financial success. There is no doubt that it is one of the essential services which the State can organise and perform for the community, and it will be a great service to each member of the community. It will ultimately provide, perhaps not a very large, but a very comfortable and very safe return on the capital expended on it, but I do not think that it is the kind of financial enterprise that would be likely to appeal to a private firm holding a gigantic monopoly, such as the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment propose to hand over to some people who are responsible to nobody and who can be advised by nobody, in the way that he and others have endeavoured to advise the Postmaster-General this afternoon. It also seems to me such an extraordinary waste of time to bring forward this Amendment, because we are always being told in this House and outside that the Conservative party are the great friends and supporters of the rural areas. No sooner do hon. Members opposite think of some remarkable suggestion which will benefit their friends in the rural areas than they say, "We must get the telephone service away from the Conservative Minister, or we shall never be any good to our rural friends in regard to getting telephones." Nearly all the hon. Members have criticised the telephone service, and I think they have criticised it very soundly. There is probably no hon. Member in this House who could not, from his own personal experience of the telephone, get up and upbraid the responsible Minister somewhat bitterly if he happened to be in that mood. We remember the time when we wasted half an hour trying to get a number, were told that there was nobody there and we knew there was someone there all the time, and forget the
thousands of times when we get through to a number without any difficulty at all.
The criticism I have to make in regard to the telephone service is the extraordinary autocratic manner in which it is occasionally conducted. During the past few weeks some subscribers in London who, for reasons of their own, which are no concern of anyone else, desire that their names and telephone numbers should not be put in the telephone directory—and there are some public men whose lives would be intolerable if the Postmaster-General was allowed to blazon their telephone numbers abroad to the world—have been written to by the Post Office telling them that their names will be put in the telephone book unless they provide in writing good and sufficient reasons why they should not. It is very much like a butcher telling you that he will not serve you until you have sent him in writing an application, three days in advance, saying exactly what meat you want, how you are going to cook it, when you are going to cook it, and who is going to eat it. It is a most autocratic impertinence on the part of the Department to ask any customers to send in writing applications, and I suggest to the Postmaster, who, of course, is not personally responsible, that he should remind some of his head officials occasionally that they are the servants of the public and are not exactly in the position of being Father Confessors.
But all these criticisms which we can make of the telephone service can be made of any large private company in this country. The larger the business, whether it is run by a Minister of State and a Department or by a board of directors, shareholders and managers, the more your red tape is bound to increase. the greater the divorcement between the men and women in the lower ranks and people at the top, and the greater the difficulty of considering each small item of the Department's or company's business. I am certain that for every fault for which we can criticise the Post Office we could easily match it with a similar and equally bad fault in respect of every large monopolised trade company in this country. There is another point on which I want to touch. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded the Amendment gave us figures, which may mean anything—generally they amount to very little—about the proportion of telephone
subscribers in a number of different countries, some of them under private enterprise and some under public enterprise.
He appeared to be very surprised to find that Denmark, where they have a public service, is very high in the list of telephone-using nations He was not able to understand it, but I suggest that it does not need a great deal of intelligence to know why Denmark is so high in the list. It is because the social services in Denmark are largely controlled by people who believe in public enterprise, not by people who do not believe in it. Hon. Members opposite say they want the telephone service put back into private hands. At the same time they say: "We do not want to say anything against the Postmaster-General and his colleagues. We are not criticising them. All we want is that this monopoly should go back to private enterprise." How can they say that without criticising in the most severe manner the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues? What is the suggestion? Is it suggested that no board of directors in their senses would select the right hon. Gentleman to run their business? Is it suggested that he is less likely to look after this business because he is a Minister of the Crown than he would be as a director of a company? I do not make either of those suggestions.
If it is suggested that the right hon. Gentleman is one who would be entrusted by a board of directors to run their business, that he is of sufficiently high personal character to be trusted to give as much attention to a public Department as he would to a private business of which he was a director, then the difference between the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this enterprise as a Minister of the Crown and in charge of it as a director, is that, as it is, the right hon. Gentleman is in the fortunate or unfortunate position of receiving representations from 614 of his fellow-citizens whenever they wish as to his Department, whereas if he were a director of a private company nobody would be able to make any kind of responsible representations to him. The attack is not levelled at either of the two Ministers of the Crown in this House who control this service, because hon. Members op-
posite are continually vying with one another in expressing their high regard for the ability and integrity of the higher branches of the Civil Service. This contradictory Amendment is brought up completely without hope, because everybody knows that the Conservative party opposes progress until time forces them to give way, and when they give way they never go back. Once they try Socialism they like it so much that they never go back to private enterprise. When hon. Members opposite give us all sorts of reasons why the great panacea of private enterprise should not be applied to this Department, I regret very much that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment did not carry their inquiry a little further. They expressed sympathy with the Postmaster-General. I do so also. To be in charge of a humdrum business Department when your public utterances show that you have the soul of an executioner must be a very difficult thing to do, but although the desires of the Postmaster-General may be for greater opportunities for heroic and martial exploits, I hope the House will leave the conduct of this Department in his hands rather than in the hands of people who are responsible to nobody.
Sir EVELYN CECIL: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but after listening to the speeches of hon. Members I think I ought to, as I had the honour of being Chairman of the Select Committee on Telephones which inquired into this matter in 1921–22. I cannot but regret that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) should endeavour to bring so much party politics into this Debate. It is quite unnecessary. The Telephone Committee was a non-party body, and although the Mover of the Amendment referred to private enterprise as against public enterprise, I would like to say that in the matter of the telephone service we cannot go back on what we have done. I was in this House when the National Telephone Company was taken over by the State in 1911, and I remember that there was a great deal of doubt about the matter and the price at the time, and for a number of years it was repeatedly asserted that the old telephone service was better than the telephone service under the State. I do not think it is any use traversing these matters now. It may be that in our own minds we think
that private enterprise might have been the best way of dealing with this service, but what we want to do is to deal with present facts.
One of the chief matters which the Select Committee on Telephones pressed rather strongly was that in order to improve the service it was desirable to have a more separate organisation of the telephone administration within the General Post Office itself. That is to say, and so far it has been carried out, they wanted to secure the greater independence of the head of the telephones in the Post Office, and while an appointment of that kind was subsequently made, I am still a little uncertain as to whether the head of that Department now is, or is not, under the Secretary of the Post Office. The idea of the Committee was that the head of the telephone department should be really independent for all practical purposes of the department of the Secretary, and directly under the Postmaster-General. That I think would very likely lead to fuller responsibility within the telephone department itself, and direct responsibility could be brought back if there was any failure in any part of the service. It is the system of administration in several other Continental services, where the telephones are in use.
Something has been said as to whether the Postmaster-General could reduce the number of guaranteed subscribers required in order to institute a telephone. I do not like to express any opinion on that. It is largely a matter of finance which can be worked out in the Post Office itself. Many of us think that it is very easy to alter certain points of detail of administration of the telephones, but in practice, and, after the inquiry which I had the honour of conducting, it often turns out to be much more difficult than appears at first sight. By way of illustration I want to turn to the question of rural areas. The Committee was strongly of the opinion that the telephone service should be extended to rural areas as far as possible. It was not likely to be a good financial proposition, because any first attempt of this character is almost necessarily a losing proposition. We were told that in Norway, in particular, there was an ideal service, and that we might find our model there. With the expert adviser on the Committee, Mr. W. Cook, I went to Norway to make inquiries. It was quite true
that up many of the little valleys a telephone service existed, but it was nearly always a party line, which might be objected to in this country. It was sometimes run by a little independent local company. Further, we found that the service was not open all day by any means, but only during certain hours, and that if you wanted to ring up for a doctor or surgeon or for any other vital purpose in the middle of the night you could get no reply at all. So that things were not quite as reported to us in evidence.
But I do believe that much can be done in rural areas in this country, and that the Post Office has done much in recent years in rural areas. More can be accomplished, no doubt, but if we look to some of the countries where the extensions into rural areas have been very successful we find two or three rather interesting circumstances. The hon. Member opposite mentioned Denmark. He was inclined to claim it as a sort of Socialistic victory. I do not know whether he really knows the circumstances in Denmark. I happen to have made some inquiry. In the central island of Denmark, where the telephone service is exceedingly efficient, it is run by a co-operative society of the farmers. It pays very well. The farmers are keen about it and work it well together. It is private enterprise, and it is generally popular. In Canada and the United States, again, there are many party lines. If you do not mind being on a party line you get a cheaper subscription and a service in very remote districts. It is the fact that a large percentage of the population in Canada and the States are on the telephone, much larger than here. It does not lie entirely with the General Post Office to produce that result in this country.
It does partly, I agree, but there is such a thing as what I may describe as the telephone habit. Those who pay a visit to Canada or the United States know quite well that everybody seems to live on the telephone; the slightest thing that has to be done is effected by telephone, to such an extent that no wonder everyone finds it essential to possess a telephone. That is not so in this country. It certainly is not so in some of the more agricultural districts. I think it is largely due to the lack of the telephone
habit in this country that the figures here are not as high as on the other side of the Atlantic. Telephones assist commerce and may add to the amenities of life, and if the nation as a whole adopted the habit more freely than at present, proprio motu, I think the Post Office would join in with them in giving every impetus to an increase in the number of telephones and in making the service successful and prosperous.

Mr. MORRIS: I do not wish to say anything about the fisrt part of the Resolution relating to private enterprise. I agree with the last speaker that discussion of that part is purely academic discussion. But with the remaining part and, indeed, with the whole of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) in reference to rural telephones, I fully agree. I rose more particularly to ask the Postmaster-General one question, and that is with regard to the guarantee. The difficulty is not only a difficulty as to the number of guarantors required in the small rural areas, but the additional difficulty with regard to the amount of the guarantee demanded from them. That presses particularly heavily in the first year after the telephone is installed. The telephone habit has not been formed during the first year, and very often difficulties are experienced in obtaining the sum necessary to pay the guarantee.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The guarantee for a call box?

Mr. MORRIS: The guarantee in respect of the call box in the rural area. Sometimes the sum demanded is rather high. I am quite prepared to join in the compliments to the Postmaster-General, that he is at all times sympathetic to us, hut in spite of that fact in many of the rural areas people are condemned to find a substantial sum. The method which they undertake in order to find the sum demanded is in many cases to arrange a concert or some other form of entertainment, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes along and demands a part of the revenue by way of Entertainments Duty. I want to ask the Postmaster-General to exercise his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to get from him
a promise to forego the Entertainments Duty in all classes of entertainments which are arranged for the purpose of defraying the guarantee demanded by the Post Office. That in itself will be an impetus. In my own experience I have not found it necessary to approach the Postmaster-General in the second year, but in the first year I have had occasion more than once to make this application. Hitherto I have not been successful in the applications that have been made.

Major PRICE: I heartily agree with my neighbour the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Morris) in what he has just said, but I hope that the Postmaster-General will extend his powers of persuasion to other Departments to assist in rural telephones. There are the Development Commissicners, who can make a grant to some of the inaccessible and widely scattered rural areas. There is also the fund for marketing, which is to be applied to all Empire produce, and this matter relates to part of the Empire. There are many ways in which the Postmaster-General, if he treats the matter as an enterprising trader anxious to sell his wares would treat it, could put into operation something that would help the rural districts financially. We do not want in rural districts separate lines. That applies especially to parts of Wales and I daresay to many places in Scotland, where the farms do not run to more than 100, 50 or 30 acres. In one village in the mountainous part of my county they asked for a telephone box and signed the guarantee without reading it. Now they are met with a charge of £36 which will practically swamp the whole of the available cash wealth of that district. Their wealth lies in their property and stock, and every single penny of cash is far more valuable to them than it is to the townsfolk.
I hope that something will be done, so that wherever there is a rural post office a telephone will he in that office to act as a call office. There is no reason why that should not be. I hope also it will he arranged that in the rural districts there is a post office for every 5,000 or 6,000 acres of land. It is not too much to ask. All parties are unanimous about one thing, and that is "Get back to the land." We ask the Post Office to do their share in getting people back to the land by offer
ing them postal and telephone facilities. The difficulties that we have are with regard to doctors, markets, and in a hundred and one ways in which people cannot get into touch with more populous centres by using the telephone. Telegraphs are useless, and in nine cases out of ten there are no telegraphs. We are as isolated as we were 100 years ago. That is not progress, and it is something in which the Postmaster-General can help us very much. We are always met courteously and we always get replies to our letters and questions, but we are not met with very much progress. I hope that that will be changed in future, even though it may cost a little more money than in the past.
There is one other matter relating to my own county, and that is that in one place we have a post office that is exceedingly busy. It requires from its operators a very high degree of efficiency in special lines. Almost every other post office where this state of efficiency is demanded of its servants is in Grade 1. We unfortunately are still in Grade 3. I refer to the post office at Milford Haven. If my right hon. Friend will compare it with other post offices in Grade 2, he will see that we have a claim to be graded up, and I hope he will give effect to the suggestion at the earliest possible opportunity. There are one or two other matters that I wish to mention, but I will put them to my right hon,. Friend personally, because I do not believe in overloading the ship. I am very glad that we have had an opportunity again of discussing the question of rural telephones, and I hope that the discussion will be more effective than its predecessors

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I would like to congratulate my two hon. and gallant Friends upon having, by bringing forward this Amendment, initiated a very interesting and a very useful Debate. Their Amendment, as has been said, has two parts. I hope they will forgive me if I say that the first part is rather of an academic nature and the second part of a more immediately practical nature. Perhaps, therefore, they will appreciate the fact if I first direct my observations to the second part, although I shall have something to say about the first part before I conclude. First of all let me say a word or two
about some of the specific points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment. He asked what, if anything, was being done to give better clearances from Uffculme and the Culme Valley generally. It is quite true that the hours of clearance in that locality are earlier in some places, in fact in most places, than they were before the War. There is one place where the hour is later, but I agree that on the whole the hours are earlier. That is due to a rearrangement of train services. The mails are now conveyed by motor to Exeter, and I am doing my best to see whether the running of that motor car service can be accelerated, and I will try to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman in that respect. He raised the question of the hours of postal delivery in Burlescombe. In Burlescombe revised times of postal delivery have already been put into operation. Before the revision the hours, broadly speaking, were an hour's later delivery in the morning, and under the new revised times I do not think he will find that there is much to quarrel with "when I tell him that at one point in the revision the present delivery is 9 o'clock in the morning and at another 8.50, and the delivery is completed in the district by 10 o'clock in the forenoon. I do not think on the whole there is very much cause of complaint where that can be said. As regards the question of the telephone charge from Whimple to Exeter as compared with the telephone charge from Honiton to Exeter the hon. and gallant Member seemed to be under a misapprehension. The telephone charge from Whimple to Exeter is 5d. at all hours of the day, while the telephone charge from Honiton to Exeter is 9d. from 7 to 2, 7d. from 2 to 7, and 6d. from 7 to 7.
This Debate has ranged very largely around the question of rural telephones and while I should like to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) into a discussion of the very interesting topic which he raised but did not pursue—indeed I do not think it would have been in order to do so—I refrain on the present occasion. The subject of the Post Office contribution to the Exchequer receipts is much too large to be dealt with at the present moment but at some time or another that may be a very fitting sub-
ject for consideration and Debate. I think I had better deal straight away with the question of the rural telephones. I may say at once that I agree with many of the contentions which have been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Aston Division of Birmingham (Sir E. Cecil). The House may not be aware of the fact that he is in many respects entitled to claim the honour of being the parent of the rural exchanges and I think I ought to pay a tribute to him in that regard. Many of the recommendations which have recently been made and some of which have already been carried out, are due to him. I think I can best put the rural position to the House by describing exactly what it is that the Post Office does at the present moment and what it offers in the way of a telephone service in the rural areas. There are three types of telephone service offered by the Post Office in the rural areas. There is the exclusive circuit for the use of a subscriber and of that subscriber alone; there are subscribers' rural party lines and two-party lines, and there are the public telephone call boxes. The direct exclusive line for the sole use of the subscriber through a telephone exchange which is always open is the best and most efficient type of telephone service, and the aim of the Post Office is to offer this type of service on terms which are likely to be acceptable to the largest possible number of people. It is for this reason that the normal rental tariff is made available. That rental tariff varies with the radial distance from the exchange.
The House, of course, will appreciate the fact that the greater the radial distance from the exchange, the greater the cost of connection. Country subscribers within one and a half miles of established exchanges where there are at least 15 subscribers, pay for connection with that exchange the normal standard charge of £7 a year for business premises and £5 10s. for private houses. A very long exclusive line costs more, and therefore, in consequence, the charge is necessarily higher. It follows that the best way of extending the service in the rural districts is to increase the number of exchanges, so as to bring as many people as possible within the reasonable radial distance from an exchange, the reasonable radial distance, for all practical pur-
poses, being something like two miles. But experience both here and in other telephone-using countries shows that very small exchanges can only be run at a loss and if, therefore, rural exchanges were established unconditionally at the normal tariff, an undue and disproportionate financial burden would be thrown on the telephone service as a whole. It is quite true the loss on the small country exchange tends to diminish as the number of subscribers grows, and it may ultimately disappear; but to start with the deficit is comparatively heavy and imposes a substantial burden for a good many years. A single individual, or two or three individuals, cannot reasonably claim, it seems to me, to be provided with a telephone service at a subtantial loss and the deficit incurved at the opening of a small exchange can, therefore, only be justified if a reasonable number of people in that locality are going to benefit from the opening of the exchange. Under existing conditions we have fixed that number at eight. We have adopted a scheme, originally sketched out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston, for encouraging the establishment of these new telephone exchanges by offering to provide such exchanges in any area remote from the existing system, where a reasonable amount of support—that is to say, eight subscribers—can be obtained, provided only that the exchange can be connected up with the general system without incurring excessive cost for junction wires.
Under this scheme there has been remarkable development. In 1913 the number of rural exchanges was 1,254. There are now nearly 2,700, and of these over 1,000 have been provided under this new system at unremunerative rates. The number of these exchanges is steadily growing, at the rate, now, of 13 or 14 a month. Each starts on the average with about 12 subscribers. They can start with eight where other conditions are fulfilled, but the average taken on the whole works out at about 12. There is this point which is satisfactory—that the number of subscribers to these exchanges Is tending to grow all the time. The average number of subscribers per exchange under the new scheme rose in 1925 from 14.8 to 16, and in 1926 rose still further to 17.3, but although the individual exchanges are growing—and as they grow they gradually get nearer the point
at which they will pay their way—the total sum of the loss incurred by the telephone service itself on the rural exchanges as a whole tends steadily to increase with the increase in the total numbers. The average initial loss is large. The average initial loss on each of these exchanges is something like £50 a year. I have not got figures for 1926, but in 1925 the average initial loss per new-exchange opened was £56.7 and the average loss per subscriber was £3.64. A steady improvement in the position of the older exchanges is more than set off as the new exchanges come along. That is why while the position of the individual exchanges is improving, the total loss is tending steadily to grow.
I have been doing my best and will continue to do my best to see what can be done to keep down construction costs in rural areas. I have asked one of my chief officers to review this question again in conjunction with the engineers to see if anything can be done to reduce the figures. I would like the House to appreciate that there are difficulties in the way. In the first place there is the difficulty common to the whole telephone service, which is that whereas it is true in most businesses that the larger your turnover the less your plant costs, that is not true in the telephone service. It is the experience of every telephone administration in the world that as the business grows, so do the plant costs per sub-.scriber tend to rise, owing to the increased complexity of apparatus and means of connection. Again, whatever you do, you cannot so cut the costs of construction as to depreciate the quality of the reception of speech. It is all very well for some of my hon. Friends to say as they sometimes do say, that the country would be well satisfied if they got a cheaper rate even with a slightly inferior quality of speech reception. I know quite well that my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover of the Amendment if anything went wrong with the service would be quick to let me know about it, and even if he were satisfied with an inferior reception of speech, those who rang him up would not be satisfied on their part. While it is quite true that you can run a type of light construction, it is only economic to do so from a practical commercial point of view where you are quite certain that you will not afterwards have to go to the expense of erecting
heavier poles and lines. That type of light construction is all right where you are sure that you will be only linking up one subscriber, but that is precisely the type of case where ex hypothesi the Post Office cannot look for lucrative development later.
Another point is that the further into the country you get and the further away from the existing system the higher are the attendant costs of construction such as travelling, subsistence, haulage, and so forth. These increase in proportion to the distance from centres. The further out you get and the more scattered are your subscribers, the longer the average length of line which the Post Office has to construct within the circle of one and a-half miles, because your subscribers being more scattered it becomes less possible to carry two subscribers' wires along one set of poles. These are some of the difficulties in the way of the construction' policy, but I repeat the view which I have expressed before in this House, that it is right and necessary for the proper development of the service as a self-supporting telephone service—and the telephone service must continue to stand on its own feet—it is right and proper that it should carry, in so far as it can carry, an unremunerative fringe of business in order to provide for constant expansion.

Major PRICE: Are we to understand that unless there are eight subscribers, no call office can be installed?

6.0 p.m.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not understand that. Eight subscribers are the condition for the setting up of a rural exchange under the rural exchange scheme. I am going to talk in a moment about party lines, and then I shall say something about call offices. There are three things: First of all, the rural exchange for an exclusive line service; secondly, party line service; and thirdly, public call offices. I was saying that, in my judgment, the Post Office ought to carry an unremunerative fringe of business in order to provide for expansion,, but if the interests of the large majority of the subscribers to the telephone service are not to be prejudiced by having their rates unnecessarily kept at
a high level, you must keep your expenditure on the unremunerative fringe under some sort of control, and growth on the outskirts of the system must have some relation to growth in the remunerative areas, and must not be artificially stimulated by a subsidy in the form of rates which are out of all relation to costs. Let me repeat that we are spending, and have spent, on establishing new rural exchanges in the last few years very large sums of money. There are already over 1,000 rural exchanges providing subscribers in the country districts with a telephone service at from £3 to £4 a year below the cost. This benefit is being extended to something like 150 people in 13 or 14 new districts every month, and in the districts already served it is being taken advantage of by more and more people.
I do not think it can be said, from the point of view of the general subscriber, that we are treating the rural areas unfairly at all, and when I am asked to reduce the rates still further, I must point out that to reduce the rates still further in existing conditions could only result, in a few years' time, in creating an economic position in which either all telephone rates would have to be raised, or the general taxpayer would have to subsidise the telephone service. That is what has actually happened in some countries which have rushed rural development without taking account of the cost thereby thrown on the general body of subscribers. When I talk of other countries,, may I say that there are certain snags, in comparing this country with other countries, over which one is apt to stumble—I have tripped over some myself, and, therefore, I speak feelingly on the subject—unless you make some inquiry into the variation in local conditions. Two points are very frequently forgotten. In the first place, exclusive line subscribers in this country are nearly always given the benefit of full trunk facilities. They can communicate with anyone, and they can speak at the ordinary trunk tariff not only to anyone in this country on the system, but to anyone on the Continent, and,, if they like, to anyone in the United States of America. That is a state of things which certainly does not obtain in many other
countries. Secondly, a large proportion of our exchanges here have a continuous service day and night, and, in fact, at all except the very smallest exchanges, we try to make some sort of arrangement under which people can be switched through at night on a party line basis so that they get some sort of night service. This, again, is very far from being the case in some of the other administrations to which reference has been made.
One point was made by my hon. and gallant Friend on which I must correct him, because it was repeated by more than one speaker in the Debate. There was a sort of suggestion made that telephone development in rural areas was being slowed down because we were anxious to get on further with telephone development in the towns. That is to say, the suggestion is that the rural areas are being, I will not say starved, but less well fed than they ought to be in order that the towns may get more nourishment. Really, that is absolutely the reverse of what are the facts. Out of about 950,000 subscribers throughout the country, 88,000 are connected from rural exchanges, a proportion of 9.3 per cent., and that is not disproportionate if you reflect that the population outside the urban districts of the country is only 20 per cent. Only 20 per cent. of the population of Great Britain lives outside the urban districts, and as you have 9.3 per cent. of the telephone subscribers living in the rural areas, I do not think that is a disproportionate figure.
But still more significant—and I would call my hon. and gallant Friend's attention especially to this—as a symptom of the efforts which we are making to develop the rural telephone system is the rate of growth, and as to the rate of growth the figures are as follow: In the last two years between 1924 and 1926 the direct exchange lines to urban exchanges have grown from 715,000 odd to 850,000 odd, a growth of 19 per cent. in the urban districts. The wires connected with rural exchanges have grown from 63,000 to 88,000, or a growth in the same period of 39.7 per cent., as opposed to 19 per cent. I do not think, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend can successfully contend that we are starving the country districts in order to feed the urban areas. It is quite true that there remain certain
areas, still more remote from the centre of telephone development, which the main telephone service cannot reach—the sort of cases which my hon. Friend there has in mind—and in such cases the residents may not be able to afford an exclusive line service. That is the class of district in which a party line service is and can be used, and, I agree with my right hon. Friend, ought to be more used than it is at present.
There are two forms of party line service—the two-party line and the rural party line. The two-party line is, in effect, an exchange connection shared between two subscribers. It is of limited scope, but it is economical for two neighbours living at some distance from their exchange. The rural party line service is normally much cheaper than the direct line service, and the Post Office is prepared to put up a rural party line service on standard terms in any district where support can be obtained. I am not saying that the rural party line service is as good as the exclusive line service. It is not. For instance, trunk calls are usually limited, for technical reasons, to a radius of 150 miles, and the user of a line between several people, while obviously presenting certain conveniences, also obviously presents certain drawbacks, but it does provide scattered districts with a cheap local form of service, especially for isolated houses, and it is particularly cheap if one reflects that it is part of the scheme that all subscribers to the one party line service can call up each other without being charged for calls at all. It, therefore, provides a suitable means of development for the outer fringe of the telephone system, and experience does show that, as rural party lines are opened up, and as people do get the telephones added, although it is in some cases of a rather slow growth, rural party line users do tend to transfer, as rural exchanges come along to be built, from rural party lines to rural exchanges, and so you have a constantly widening circle going on, and consequently we find that, whereas the number of rural exchange subscribers grows, the number of rural party line subscribers tends to remain fairly constant. At the present moment the figure is something like 10,000 subscribers, but we are always ready—and I emphasise this again—to canvass in any rural area
in order to try to get people to join in taking a rural party line.

Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say a word about facilities at railway stations?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My hon. and gallant Friend has anticipated the course of my observations. I shall come to that point, but I thought it would arise more appropriately if I passed, as I am on the point of doing, to the question of call offices. I have said something about exclusive lines and comething about party lines, and there now remains the third means of serving the rural communities with telephone facilities, and that is by the provision of public call offices. Where there is already an exchange, it enables people who do not need or or cannot yet afford to have a telephone to have some opportunity of sending telephone messages, it may be even in an emergency, and for this reason a public call office is usually provided with every rural exchange-There are villages, many of them, in which there is as yet no exchange, and in villages such as that a call office does constitute what you might call an outpost of the general telephone system, making the whole system available for anyone in the village who cares to use it. The call fees are certainly not large. They vary with distances. They start at 2d., and the Post Office is prepared to provide call offices in any post office or other suitable premises, or to put up kiosks, provided only there is a reasonable prospect of the things paying their way.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman refer to soundproof boxes?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In the case of kiosks?

Sir R. HAMILTON: No, at the post offices.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, as far as it is reasonably practicable. It is not possible, as the hon. Member well knows, in many cases actually, for reasons of space, to make such provision, but where it can be done, we do try to do the best we can. The point I was about to make was that we have already provided call offices wherever there was a
reasonable chance that a call office, if erected, would pay its way, and quite a email use of a call office will enable it to do so. The annual cost for maintaining a call office within one-and-a-half miles of the exchange with which it is connected varies from only £11 to £15, and the receipts from four or five calls per day in the first case, or half-a-dozen calls in the case of the call office costing £15 will cover the expense, and even when the exchange is further off, as far as three miles, the expense can be covered by 10 or 12 local daily calls. It might be inferred from these figures that call offices should be provided in the large majority of villages, and it is quite true that the installation of call offices is proceeding very rapidly. Last year we installed about 320 call offices, and there are now altogether in rural areas 6,677, but there still remains a very large number of places where, unfortunately, there is little hope of, a call office being self-supporting at present. The reason is that experience shows that the use of a call office where it is provided in a rural village is surprisingly disappointing.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any standard as to the population surrounding any village for it to have a call office placed there by the Post Office?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Only a general estimate of the use likely to be made of the call office, and how fallacious that is, will be seen when I relate the other half of the sad story which my hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway told with such feeling just now. He alluded to a locality where a call office was established, and where he said they had found themselves unable to supply the guarantee which had become due. In that case, I went into the facts, and I have since refreshed my memory. What actually happened was what so often happens. A petition, signed by practically every inhabitant in the village, at least by something over 100 inhabitants, was presented in favour of the establishment of a call office, and somewhat optimistic—I will say no more—forecasts were made as to the use which was likely to be made of it. The Post Office authorities have become a little bit sceptical of these forecasts, and I think perhaps not without reason. This was a case in which
the expenditure on providing the service was pretty high, and they took the precaution of requiring a guarantee. In fact, the receipts from that office in the first year after its establishment were somewhere about £5, and that sum, divided by the number of applicants who had signed the original petition, showed that they had made less than six calls each during the year. Really, that is a type of case which the State cannot be expected to meet at the expense of the State. In such conditions it is not right to establish or to continue a call office at the expense of the general body of telephone subscribers. When there is a local demand for a call office the cost ought really to fall on the locality, and it is to provide for cases of this sort that the guarantee system is valuable.
I would like to say one word with regard to the question, also raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as to the general provision of call offices. Nearly half of the 13,000 rural post offices in the country, including "five-sixths of the postal telegraph offices, are already provided with call offices, and I agree that the object at which we should aim is to secure that the whole of the rural telegraph offices shall, in course of time, be equipped as call offices. The number is rapidly growing. The hon. and gallant Member for the Faversham Division (Sir G. Wheler) asked me a question just now about the establishment of call offices at railway stations. A desire is being constantly expressed by farmers, and agriculturists generally, for further facilities for communicating with rural railway stations. I agree that this is a desire which ought to be satisfied, although it is fair to say that here again tests which I made as to the use made of the facilities after they have been provided show that the forecasts in some of the petitions got up were somewhat optimistic. Still, I do think it is a need which ought to be met, and which I am doing my best, jointly with the railway companies, to try to meet as far as possible. We have been making a special effort with the railway companies during the past few months, and we have been able to make arrangements with several railway companies, for providing call offices for telephones, to be available for incoming calls at railway stations. where the railway company cannot afford to rent an exchange line. Nearly 100 addi-
tional rural railway stations have already been, or are being, provided with telephones under this scheme, and about 40 more are under consideration. One railway, the Great Western Railway, which has been most helpful in this matter, has, I am told, given instructions to its station-masters that when they are reporting the arrival of consignments they are, if the. consignee is on the telephone, to use the telephone for that purpose in preference to using, as hitherto, the ordinary means of postal communication.
I am afraid I have already detained the House at some length, but I cannot sit down without saying one word about the other half of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, the half which deals with what I may call the more academic question of the relation between State enterprise and private enterprise in the telephone service. The telephone service is really a plant of very recent growth. Its early youth was stunted, and its growth was certainly hindered by innumerable changes of policy on the part of the Governments of those days. Looking back, as we can do now, with the wisdom that comes after the event, and with the knowledge which is born of experience, one can see perfectly clearly that there were only two courses open to the Governments of those days—either, from its inception, to have developed the system by State enterprise, or to have handed telephones over, lock, stock, and barrel, to be operated by a private monopoly.
There is a great deal which could have been said in favour of either course. From the point of view of State enterprise, the State might very properly have considered that as it already owned the telegraphs it would be as well that it should manage and own the telephone service, so that the two could grow up side by side. From the point of view of private monopoly, it might have been contended that private interests afford the stimulus of gain and also enjoy a greater freedom from hampering administrative regulations; and private enterprise, if it made gains, would have retained those gains and would not have seen them vanish in other directions. All that might have been contended with a great deal of truth at the time, and when I look, as I constantly do, at the methods and finance of the greatest telephone ad-
ministration in the world, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, I realise that in many respects private enterprise has its inherent advantages. But there are also difficulties, and great difficulties in the way, difficulties which are greater in a highly industrialised country like this than there were 50 years ago in the United States of America. if the Governments of those days had decided to entrust the development of the telephone service to private enterprise they would have had to be prepared to entrust to that monopoly all, and more than all, the powers which the Postmaster-General now enjoys in regard to wayleaves. I do not know that Parliament would have done it, and I do know that it would have been very bitterly opposed by local authorities.
But it is really idle to speculate on what might have happened if the Government of that day had decided either for State enterprise or for private monopoly. In fact, they chose neither. They adopted a middle course, and, as usual with middle courses, it had all the disadvantages of both and few of the advantages of either. They licensed the companies to operate in certain restricted areas, on a royalty basis. They hedged them about with a series of restrictions upon their operations. They also authorised the Post Office to have exchanges on its own account, for the purpose, so it was said, of stimulating competition. These conditions completely crippled the service. Although they were relaxed in 1884, still, when the master patents ran out in 1891, Parliament was deluged with complaints about the inefficiency of the telephone service, both the National Telephone Company's service and the Post Office service. In 1892 a new policy was adopted, and the trunks were taken over by the State at a cost of something under half-a-million, I think £459,000, the deal being completed finally in 1896.
Still, the difficulties about way-leaves continued, and the National Telephone Company, which had by then swallowed up all the other competing telephone companies, had to do as best they could in bargaining with municipalities and local authorities all up and down the country in order to get wayleaves for their wires to enter the territories of those local authorities. In many cases local authorities made great difficulties and drove a very hard bargain. It was
seen quite soon that that policy had broken down; but still the competition microbe was infecting the minds of statesmen, and so this attitude was adopted. It was then said, "As municipalities are making difficulties and putting obstacles in the path of the development of the service of the National Telephone Company, why not let municipalities themselves conduct their own services?"
That policy was ordained in 1899. What happened? This is a curious side light on municipal enterprise in this respect. Some 60 municipalities made application for permission to start their own telephone services under licence. Only 13 licences were actually taken out, and of those 13 only six were actually taken up. Of those six, five were surrendered within a very few years upon sale of the undertaking either to the Post Office or to the National Telephone Company. One survived, and survives to this day, in the City of Hull, which still operates a service under licence from the Post Office, on a royalty basis.

Mr. JOHNSTON: And it is the cheapest!

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The City of Hull as a unit has certain advantages as to being geographically and economically self-contained which do not operate in the case of other local authorities. Between 1901 and 1905 a series of agreements was concluded as to the terms upon which an option was to be exercised by the Government to take over the telephone service, and it was arranged that it should be taken over in December, 1911, on "tramway terms." It was, in point of fact, taken over at that date, the price paid being just under £12,500,000, the portion of the Post Office telephones being valued at £9,000,000 out of a total of £21,000,000. The valuation of the Post Office telephones to-day 31st March, 1927, is £95,000,000 gross and £81,000,000 net.
I spoke about competition. Let me add one word on that point. In most businesses competition is a most valuable tonic. In the telephone business it is a slow poison, as the House will appreciate as soon as I explain the facts. If you have a system of close working agreement between your two competing systems, providing for the greatest
possible facilities of inter-communication between the two—because communication with a large number of other subscribers is vital to every subscriber—it follows that you must have a whole set of other working agreements as to standardisation of plant, hours and general working conditions. If you do that you to all intents and purposes eliminate competition altogether. On the other hand, if you do have sustained and vigorous competition going on, two sets of people competing against each other, each sticking to their own subscribers, each refusing to give inter-communication with the other, not only do you have a restricted service from the subscribers' point of view, but, in the end, you have the service being starved because of the continuance of the policy of rate cutting. Sooner or later one service or the other succumbs, and then you are left with a whole array of wasted and wasteful duplicated plant. That is true of the telephone service, because of the necessity of maintaining communication, but in most businesses we regard competition as helpful and necessary. The question is academic rather than practical at the present moment, and, while I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that he and I might have held different views on this question 30 or 40 years ago, it must be recognised that we have to deal with the conditions as they exist to-day. No doubt it is open to argument which would have been the better horse, but you cannot swop horses now. That is physically impossible at the present moment with the whole of our operations, lines, cables and all the rest as they exist to-day. With an apology for my long speech, I wish to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for the way in which he moved his Amendment, and I hope that, having achieved his object in raising this Debate, he will now allow the Motion to go through and les us proceed to the discussion of another subject.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny were appointed as Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

Main Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day — WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We make no apology for returning once again to the Washington Convention on hours of labour. On 28th February this House listened to a long discussion on the same question; but we are determined to raise this issue again and again, until the Government is pressed to do its duty. We have very special reasons for bringing this matter before the House once again; one of the most important is the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary in the speech he delivered on 28th February, in which he said:
On this issue of the Washington Hours Convention the Government have set up a Cabinet Committee which at this moment is charged with the duty of examining the whole position with a view to arriving at a definite conclusion.
That was a very much more definite and clear declaration than the Parliamentary Secretary's chief made in a speech the same evening. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for being very much more clear than his chief on that occasion. I happened to say then, and I think it might as well be repeated now, that the Minister of Labour was very unhappy in the position in which he found himself; and I feel sure that the events which have transpired since that Debate have not made him any more comfortable.
The next point which gives me a. reason for raising this issue to-night is the statement in the "Times" of 8th March, to the following effect:
It is understood that Lord Cecil has been appointed Chairman of the Cabinet Committee which is considering the whole question of the Washington 48 Hours Week Convention.
The "Times" is not by any means inclined towards the Labour movement; but it is a very fair journal on this issue, and it goes on to say:
It is hoped as a result of this inquiry that the decision of the Government on the question of ratification will be announced soon after Lord Cecil's return from Geneva.
Lord Cecil has obviously returned from Geneva since then, and I think we are entitled therefore to ask what has been done. The statement of the hon. Gentleman that a Cabinet Committee has been appointed, and was actually sitting when the hon. Member spoke, and the fact that Lord Cecil has returned from Geneva,
compel us to ask what is the result of all these deliberations. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) put a question on 23rd March, when she asked—
Whether the Government had examined the Report of the Committee appointed to examine the position in relation to the Washington Hours Convention, and whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the policy of the Government with regard to the ratification of this Convention.
The Prime Minister replied:
I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.
A similar question was put to the Prime Minister yesterday to which he replied by using exactly the same words; he stated that he had nothing further to say on the subject. I think the time has arrived when we ought to have some decision from the Government on this important matter. We are getting tired of appealing to the Government; and we are also getting tired of something else. The situation on the Continent of Europe is becoming very serious. We are being pressed by labour organisations in other countries, particularly by Belgium, where they have ratified this Convention. These organisations are rightly asking what are we doing to bring our own country up to the level of Belgium. We are in honour bound, therefore, as labour representatives, to stand up in this House to urge the Government to do its duty in this connection.
I have a very serious complaint to make against Ministers of the Crown in this respect. I have here a list of the meetings of the Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation. It was customary up to the advent of this Government for Ministers to pay attention to, and, in fact, did attend, the meetings of the Governing Body and conferences of the International Labour Organisation. I do not know what that body has done to offend the hon. Gentleman who sits at the Box to-night, or the Minister of Labour, because I find that out of 15 meetings the hon. Gentleman has not attended more than about two. One was a meeting of the Governing Body and the other was the conference itself. Those two meetings were held in May, 1925. I know the Civil Service is an honourable body of men, and quite
capable of representing this country in any conference, but I say that the Minister of Labour and his assistant ought themselves to attend the conferences at Geneva and the meetings of the Governing Body, because they cannot possibly know, even through the beat officials they send, the real opinions of the representatives of other Governments who meet at Geneva. I think it an insult to the League of Nations that Ministers of this great country do not attend those meetings. The Minister for Foreign Affairs attends the meetings of the League of Nations regularly: and I pay my tribute to him by saying that I do not know of any occasion when he has neglected his duty. But in relation to questions affecting labour and working people generally, and the employment of women and children, this Government, through its Labour Minister and his assistant, appear to take no notice whatever of these important organisations. We are entitled to complain of the inactivities and inattention of the Minister of Labour and his assistant on this particular question.
When we dealt with this Convention in February last, the main argument used against its ratification was that no other country where they had adopted the Convention—Belgium, in particular—and no great industrial country in competition with us, enforced their labour laws as effectively as we do in this country. I have since taken the trouble to find out what is the actual practice in countries on the Continent who are in competition industrially with ourselves. The only measurement of the enforcement of labour legislation in any country is the number of inspectors that they appoint, the number of inspections of factories and workshops, and the number of convictions for contraventions of the law. Let me deal with the last factor. After all, the number of convictions for contravention of factory legislation is surely a fair guide as to what is happening by way of enforcing the laws of any country. I will give the House some figures. Let it be remembered that the allegation is that, when we pass a piece of legislation in this House, that Act of Parliament is pursued and enforced very much more effect
tively than is the case in any other country in the world.
Strong arguments can be adduced in support of that point of view. But I would ask hon. Gentlemen who took part in the discussion on the last occasion, and who threw that point against our argument, to note the figures I am about to give. The convictions in Belgium in 1925 for the violation of factory and workshop legislation were 650. In Czechoslovakia there were 1,054, and in France, where we were told they are more lax than in any other country in the world, the number was 6,596. In Germany there were 615 convictions. In Great Britain, however, where the enforcement of these laws is supposed to be more stringent than anywhere else, the figure, as against 6,596 in France, was just over 1,000. That is to say, for a smaller number of working people, a smaller number of factories and workshops, for every six convictions against persons violating these laws in France, there was only one in our own country. I say, therefore, that the point made by hon. Gentlemen, that we should not ratify the Convention because other industrial countries do not pursue their laws as we do, falls to the ground in view of the figures I have given.
As I have said, we are, as a country, placed in a very difficult position because of the non-ratification of this Convention. It is understood that Belgium has ratified unconditionally; France and Germany will ratify conditionally. I have here a copy of the Bill which is now before the German Reichstag; and, so far as I understand its provisions, there is nothing to prevent the German Government ratifying this Convention provided they get the guarantee that Great Britain ratifies it as well. We are determined that no stone shall be left unturned to try to induce this Government to ratify the Convention. as they are in honour bound to do. I know some of the arguments that are used against doing this. I have stated a few of them. I do not want to dwell unduly on that subject, because I want to pass on to something else, but, before I leave this issue, I want finally to emphasise two. points. I want, to know what has become of the deliberations of the Cabinet Committee to which the hon. Gentlemanl
referred in his speech on the 28th February, and, also, what is the connection between the meeting which Lord Cecil attended and the Cabinet Committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I think we are now entitled to know exactly what has transpired in this connection.
The speech delivered by the Minister of Labour on that occasion was not hopeful at all. As a matter of fact, I characterised some of his statements as simply ridiculous. One of them was sufficient to indicate that the Government is absolutely undecided in the matter. It has no mind at all on this subject, even if it has a mind on anything whatsoever. It has obviously failed to come to a decision. When we dealt with the issue on the last occasion, the Minister of Labour simply floundered through his speech; but I was pleased that his assistant, as is very often the case, did better than his chief. He was very much more clear on the subject. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is in charge of the Debate to-night, and I feel sure that he will now be able to tell us something which will help us to understand exactly the position the Government takes up on this fundamental issue.
There is another point that I want to bring before the House—the failure of the Government to ratify another Convention, namely, that relating to the prohibition of the use of white lead in paint. It is not necessary to go over all the details which led up to the adoption of this Convention, but two events have transpired since which compel us to bring this subject once again before the notice of the House. One of them is the resignation—and I want to congratulate that gentleman on his courage—of the Chief Medical Inspector of Factories in the Home Office. It was he who helped to draft the Convention, and who supported the British Government in bringing pressure to bear upon other countries to get the Convention adopted. He went further; he represented the Government, and signed his name, so I understand, to this Convention. But when he found later that this Government, instead of ratifying the Convention, issued Regulations instead of prohibition, he resigned his position in the Home Office. I pay him tribute here and now for his honourable action. That is one
event that has transpired in connection with the failure of the Government to ratify the Lead Paint Convention.
The most sinister of all is the one to which I referred in a question to the Under-Secretary of State for India last Monday. The Federation of British Industries does its work sometimes in the open, though at other times it works in devious and dark ways. What it has done in this connection is very interesting to the House of Commons, and particularly to those who sit on this side. I found in the official journal of the federation the other day that they had communicated with the India Office, asking that Office to send to the Bombay Government a communication to the effect, that, as the British Government had decided not to prohibit the use of white lead in paint, but to regulate it, the federation asked the Bombay Government to follow the lead of the British Government and destroy the provisions for prohibition that it had already set up. That is an appalling state of affairs. The British Government—it does not matter what its political colour may be—goes to an international Conference and signs a document in favour of prohibiting the use of white lead in paint. The tragedy connected with the use of white paint is very well known. It is not necessary to repeat the figures that we have given here before, but approximately they are these: About 50 operative painters die annually in this country from lead poisoning through the use of white lead in paint. There are over 200 operative painters always suffering from lead poisoning. That in itself, I should imagine, ought to induce any Government, of any political colour, to help to ratify this Convention; but the Government defy the Convention; they defy all expert opinion; they do not intend to Help the working classes to a better state in life. [Interruption.] When the history of this Government is written, it will be found without any hesitation—and I do not generally use strong words—that it is the most callous towards the working classes that has ever governed. Their action last year, when they adopted that piece of legislation in connection with the mining industry—

Mr. SPEAKER: The House must not criticise its own acts, and especially on a Supply day. That is a matter of legisla-
tion, which is not open to discussion in connection with Supply.

Mr. DAVIES: I bow to your ruling, Sir; I was led away. It is very seldom that a Welshman is led away by an Englishman. The point I was trying to make was that, the Government having failed to ratify this Convention, the utilisation of the machinery of the India Office to convey an invitation of this kind to the Bombay Government to destroy the Convention in that country, is, in my view, an awful thing to contemplate, and I want to raise my protest against it. I feel very keenly on this subject, because, when I put a supplementary question to the Under-Secretary of State for India, his reply destroyed every argument used in favour of regulation in this country. See what he says:
As regards the question of the Convention generally, I would point out that the difficulty the Government of India feel in putting it into operation is that it is impossible for any Government to control the hundreds of thousands of small painters who have been working in the past."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1927; col. 834, Vol. 204.]
That is exactly the argument we have used against regulating the use of white lead in paint—because no Government can accomplish the task. Now, a Tory Minister of State comes forth, because it suits his purpose, because it suits the purpose of the Federation of British Industries, and uses a Labour argument in favour of his action. They generally do that when it fits their case.
I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House on this issue, but I want to ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Home Office whether he will be good enough to give me information on one other very important point. The Home Office on this question of lead paint, has issued a Circular, No. 503342, and I am informed on credible authority that this circular, although issued in December last, uses words to the effect that certain Conferences have been held. These Conferences were, in fact, held many years ago; and it is unfair to include in this circular any words relating to those Conferences, because they would imply that they were held just prior to the issue of the circular. I think that point ought to be cleared up at once by the repre-
sentative of the Home office. I do not want to detain the House too long, but the issues are really fundamental to those on this side of the House. I have been a trade union official, in some capacity or other, for over 20 years. The one thing that I heard talk of most, that I have heard most agitation about, and the claim, above all, of the working people of this country for the last half-century, by resolution and otherwise, has been in favour of the 48-hour week. This Government, when it came into office, had an opportunity of doing something on those lines. They have failed; they stand condemned; and, when they are weighed in the balance of justice before the public tribunal at the next General Election, they will be condemned for their inaction in this as on other important issues.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies), quite properly, if I may say so respectfully, did not reopen the question which we discussed at such great length only a month ago. If I gathered his object rightly, it was merely to ask one or two perfectly specific questions, to which I am quite prepared, and, indeed, anxious, to give an equally specific reply. The first question he asked was about the action of the Cabinet Committee to which I referred in my speech of a month ago, in which I said:
The Government have set up a Cabinet Committee which at this moment is charged with the duty of examining the whole position with a view to arriving at an early conclusion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1927; col. 162, Vol. 203.]
7.0 p.m.
Then the hon. Gentleman referred to a statement in the "Times," which I accept from him, though I do not for a moment recollect it, that Lord Cecil was the chairman of this Committee. It is quite true that Lord Cecil is, if not the chairman, at any rate a prominent member of the Committee. It is also true that Lord Cecil was at that time it-Geneva. The Committee was set up about five weeks ago, and for the last fortnight Lord Cecil has been, and is now, at Geneva, engaged on a matter which I am sure is at least as interesting, not only to the hon. Member but to the whole
House, as the matter under discussion, the Disarmament Conference which is now going on there. For the last fortnight then the advantage of his presence on that matter has not been enjoyed.
The second point to which I wish to draw attention is this. I am not, of course, entitled, nor do I wish, to discuss legislation, but I am entitled to point out that ratification of this Convention is not to be obtained merely by registering ratification at Geneva or merely by passing a Resolution of this House to that effect. To ratify involves, in the first place, the bringing of the legislation of this country into conformity with the Convention which it is proposed to ratify. That, of course, involves a Bill, and a Bill needs very careful preparation before it is presented. Before you present a Bill on any subject, if you are well advised, you consider very carefully what you put in it. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the last to desire that important points, particularly when they are points raised by himself should not receive adequate consideration. May I mention one point which he himself raised a month ago? He said, in the course of his speech, complaining of the Government:
Where the Convention meant something substantial and was going to cost this country something to put it into operation, to and behold, as in the White Lead case, they gave us a Bill which did not ratify the Convention at all. I say, therefore, that there is no virtue at all in the fact that this country has ratified more Conventions, as the Minister has told us, than any other country in the world, because those Conventions did not cost the country anything at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February,) 1927; col. 150. Vol. 203.]
I do not deny that this country should ratify the Eight Hours Convention if it is right that it should do so, but, when the hon. Member points out that such ratification should cost the country something, it is at least right that the Government should know what the cost would be and what the effect would be if the ratification were carried into force. As I have said, I do not pretend to discuss the merits of the case, which was gone into so fully only a month ago, but I am pointing out that there are matters which have to be most carefully considered before a final decision is come to. One hon. Gentleman, the right
hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), referred to the importance of international agreement, and said:
International cartels without uniform labour regulations are going to give an unfair advantage to the producers in the least progressive States.
He also said about these questions:
We have been doing it piecemeal, and it has done us no harm up to now, but if we could get international agreement, how much better it would be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1927; col. 106, Vol. 203.]
So, therefore, it is idle to dismiss the value and importance of getting international agreement, because it is perfectly obvious,, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that if you ratify this Convention without international agreement, you lose a very large portion of the benefit that you get if you succeed in securing international agreement.

Mr. DAVIES: Belgium has done it.

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, it is perfectly-true Belgium has ratified the Convention. Then the hon. Member referred to Germany, and said that Germany has introduced a Bill for that purpose. What, in fact, Germany has done—I only-mention this not in criticism of the hon. Member, but to point out some of the matters we have to consider—is to circulate a Bill for the purpose of discussion. It is stated that under no circumstances will that Bill be introduced this session. I do not say that that Bill, if passed,, would not have the effect the hon. Gentleman says it will have, but it is quite a different thing to say that Germany has definitely introduced a Bill for the purpose of ratification. There is only one other point I wish to mention. I did not know the hon. Member was going to raise it. He seemed to complain that I had not myself attended at Geneva as often as I should like to have attended. I say at once that my substitute, who represents the Government at Geneva, is a gentleman of very great experience, in whom we have the most complete confidence, and he has represented the views of Great Britain very clearly and forcibly on every occasion when he has been en trusted with their expression. But when the hon. Gentleman goes on to say that the fact that I or some Minister has not on every occasion represented this Government at the meetings of the
governing body at Geneva is a sign of inattention and incivility and even, as he said, an insult to the League of Nations, I must point out that there is no other Government represented on the governing body which has at any time been represented by a Minister at all. They have always been represented by someone qualified, by a civil servant of high standing, or some other gentleman who, in fact, is not a Minister. It is, therefore, quite unfair to say that the fact that I myself have not been there can be in any way regarded as an insult to that body or as not treating it with civility.

Mr. DAVIES: Is it not a fact that the Government are represented by a Minister at their annual Conference? Is it the intention of the Government to send a Minister to the next Conference in May?

Mr. BETTERTON: With regard to the next Conference in May, I cannot say until the time comes. I may say that, with the exception of the Conference last May, I have always attended as a representative of the Government whenever I held the office I do hold. If the hon. Member will recall the facts of last May, he will realise at once that the situation here was such and the burden of responsibility cast upon the Minister was such, that it would not have been right for me to have gone at that time. That was not out of any discourtesy to the International Labour Office or to the League of Nations. It was entirely due to the fact—it may sound egotistical—that my right hon. Friend felt I ought to be here rather than there. Without going into the merits of this question, I have dealt, I hope clearly, with the points which the hon. Gentleman raised, and I will leave my hon. Friend beside me to deal with the rest.

Mr. DAVIES: Will he tell us whether the Government intend to ratify this Convention at all and, if so, when?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have already tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman that that is the very matter under the consideration of the Cabinet Committee to which he quite rightly attaches so much importance.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I only want to say a few words on the
points raised by the hon. Member with regard to lead paint. He referred to the resignation of Sir Thomas Lane, but that point has been answered in the House several times by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I would only point out that Sir Thomas Lane had reached the pensionable age nearly four years before resigning, and that for three years before his resignation he could have resigned at any time. Had he not retired at the moment that he did, he would have been compulsorily retired, on reaching the age of 65, early next year. With regard to ratification of the draft Convention, I think there is some misunderstanding as to the status of this International Labour Conference. The members on this Conference are not plenipotentiaries sent over to exercise the sovereign powers of the countries they represent. They are there merely to put forward recommendations or to make draft Conventions. That is made perfectly clear in the terms of the actual Peace Treaty. I would like to call the attention of the House very shortly to paragraph 405 of the Peace Treaty:
Each of the Members undertakes that it will, within the period—bring the recommendation or draft convention before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action.
That clearly recognises that it is only a recommendation which is to be made before the Legislature or sovereign body in the country to which the members belong. In the same Article it says:
If on a recommendation no legislative or other action is taken to make a recommendation effective, or if the draft convention fails to obtain the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, no if father obligation shall rest upon the Member.
It is quite clear that there is no obligation upon this Government or any other Government represented there to ratify that draft Convention. It was laid before this House in 1923. It has since been considered and, as has been explained by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the Second Reading of the Act, since the draft Convention was passed a new process was brought to light, the wet rubbing down process, by which it was hoped that many of the dangers—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is just why I intervened earlier in the Debate. We are
now criticising Acts passed last year. The only question on which lead paint can arise is the question arising out of the matter dealt with by the Government of Bombay.

Captain KING: I am afraid I am not competent to answer for the India Office or the Bombay Government. I shall only try to explain to the hon. Member the reason for the Regulations being brought in. I hope I am in order in replying to the criticisms which the hon. Member made in regard to the actual Order issued by the Home Office to the trade issuing these Regulations, because the hon. Member insinuated that we were making a false representation in issuing that Order. The actual words of the Order were:
The terms of the regulation to 'be made by the Secretary of State have been discussed at a series of conferences held between the Home Office and various Departments.
There is nothing in that to suggest that those conferences had taken place recently. It is true the conferences there referred to had taken plaice some considerable time before the Regulations were issued. On the other hand, since they have been issued there has been a further conference with the appropriate trade joint council, and I am informed agreement has been reached with that council, and the Regulations have been agreed with certain very small alterations which will be adopted by the Home Office.

Mr. KELLY: Which is that trade joint council?

Captain KING: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to quote it as the appropriate one. The Conferences held previously were with the Painters and Decorators Joint Industrial Council. I could ascertain, but I only know that it has been discussed quite recently by the appropriate Trade Joint Council, and agreement has been reached except on certain minor points which will be adjusted. The Home Secretary said the Regulations were on trial. It is hoped that we shall be able to remove the danger from the use of lead paint. If that is. not so he will have to come to the House for further powers.

Mr. VIANT: I regret that a representative of the Home Office is not present, because I appreciate the difficulty with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is confronted in deputising for the Department. The draft of these Regulations was issued on 31st December, and there is no disputing the fact that the Circular that was sent out was misleading in that it led those into whose hands it got to believe that these conferences were of recent date.

Captain KING: There is nothing to say so.

Mr. VIANT: No, that is where it is misleading. That is where the danger arises. A Government Department, when issuing Regulations of this character which are likely to affect the well-being of operators in the industry, ought not to consider it to be any light affair. This Circular created the impression that the Convention was going to be ratified, and that these Regulations were to apply to external and not to internal work. It would have been more honest to the industry had the Home Office convened another conference and taken into consideration the developments which have taken place as the result of the passing of the Act of last December. The industry was not consulted in the least. It issued these draft Regulations, and I should have thought the Home Office would have convened a special conference to consider the criticisms which had been levelled at the Regulations from this side of the House. But the Home Office did more than deal unwisely with the Regulations. Those who are engaged in the industry are very much concerned as to the developments which have taken place as the result of the issuing of these suggested Regulations. It has meant the resignation of a valued expert in she Home Office. I refer to Sir Thomas Legge. A question was put in the House asking the reasons for his resignation, and the House was led to believe that it was due to the fact that he had arrived at the pensionable age, and, furthermore, that he was not desirous of working the Regulations. That was grossly unfair, and it was not true. It is true that he had arrived at a pensionable age, but it is no uncommon thing for the term of service of a valued expert in any of our Departments to be extended, and an extended term of service of this valued expert
would have been to the advantage of those concerned in the industry. Moreover, Sir Thomas Legge did not refuse to have anything to do with the Regulations. He said he was desirous of honouring the pledge he gave at Geneva, but, apparently, in order to get rid of him they accepted his resignation and led the House to believe that it was because he had arrived at a pensionable age. The letter that appeared in the "Times" on 16th February, signed by a respected Member of this House, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), the right hon. G. N. Barnes, and Mr. E. L. Poulton goes to confirm the views held by Sir Thomas Legge.

Mr. SPEAKER: That, again, is raising a question which was debated at great length last year, the question of prohibition versus regulation. That was settled by the Bill which became an Act last year. We must not debate that question now.

Mr. VIANT: I am desirous of reading this extract in order to prove that the view taken by Sir Thomas Legge was upheld by those who accompanied him as the expert at Geneva.

Mr. SPEAKER: That was quite a proper point to deal with last year, but it is not now. It was settled for the time being by the Act passed last year. The hon. Member must not reopen it.

Mr. VIANT: Sir Thomas was under the impression, and rightly, I think, that the pledge having been given, as a civil servant he must do his utmost to see that it was kept. In so doing he expressed a desire that he should not be prevailed upon to carry out these Regulations and, as a result, of course, he was compelled to resign. We feel that the whole of the facts were not stated to the House as they should have been by the Home Secretary, and that before anything of this kind occurs again, in the way of issuing Regulations, those concerned should be immediately called into conference, and a circular so misleading as the one issued by the Home Office should on no account be sent out.
With respect to the Eight Hours Convention, the Parliamentary Secretary read a quotation from a speech of the
right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Rinciman) and he said where cartels were developing it was desirable that we should have international agreement in respect of labour conditions. That is precisely what we desire, because we feel That unless we use the League of Nations at the various offices which may be set up for specific purposes we shall not be treating it as it should be treated, and we shall not be playing the practical part that we should, which will ultimately, I hope, invoke that spirit of confidence among the masses in those things that may be done through the agency of the League of Nations and ultimately arrive at international under- standings which will be for the general wellbeing. We feel the Government is losing a valuable opportunity in not ratifying the Eight Hours Convention and showing at least what can be done by way of levelling up the conditions of labour throughout the world and reducing, as we believe, the unnecessary and unfair competition that prevails at present.

Captain MACMILLAN: With regard to the Washington Convention and its proposed ratification, I should like to reiterate what was said in the Debates we had a short time ago and the very strong feeling of hope that the Government would see its way to ratify. The hon. Member who raised this Debate has not altogether done a service to the prospect of ratification. His argument led to the conclusion that you can judge the law-abiding character of people by the number of prosecutions for breach of the law, which did not seem to me altogether a sound argument. To raise this Debate so soon after the other Debate we had on this question is unfortunate. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government will not fall into the danger of thinking that because this has been a very calm Debate, there is not a very strong feeling in all parts of the House on this question. The Parliamentary Secretary was not able to tell the House when the Cabinet Committee would be able to present its report. I appreciate the peculiar difficulties which surround Lord Cecil's position, with the very important disarmament conference and other important duties at Geneva which he has had to fulfil; but the report and the decision of the Government are very anxiously awaited. I do trust that the
Government will remember the Debate which took place not very long ago; one of the most damaging Debates in the history, I should think, of almost any Government, when they received practically no support from any quarter of the House. I hope that the comparatively calm atmosphere of this Debate will not mislead them into thinking that there is not a very strong feeling on the matter. This Debate has come on without hon. Members interested in the subject realising that it was to be taken. I only want to emphasise the very strong opinion which is held by hon. Members in all quarters of the House, not least among the supporters of the Government, who earnestly desire that the Government will come to a rapid decision to ratify and enforce the Washington Eight Hours Convention.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I rise to protest against the use of lead paint. A protest is needed, because it is well known that the operative painters who suffer from the use of lead paint have protested against its continued use and desire its prohibition. In these circumstances, they might have been consulted in regard to the Regulations for the continued use of lead paint. It seems to me that the resignation of Sir Thomas Legge is the most striking condemnation of the Government's policy over this matter that could possibly be conceived. I do not think that these Regulations can be made

effective, and I speak as a practical man. I have heard many views on this matter. I have heard hon. Members speaking of the use of paint in such a way as to show that they did not understand what they are talking about. They described methods which are never practised by painters, and they described methods which no painters ever use or ever devise. I protested in Committee, and I protest once more not only against the Government's Measure which they carried out, but against their action in not allowing the men to discuss the matter with them before the Regulations which the men must put into operation were applied. It is not the employers or the manufacturers who use the lead paint; they do not suffer the danger or run the risk It is the men who suffer and run the risk, and it is the men who know whether or not the Measures will be effective. I prophesy that the Regulations will break down. My knowledge of the technique of painting and the practical method applied tells me that the Regulations will be impracticable as far as the use of lead paint is concerned. I protest against the methods by which these Regulations are put into operation.

Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 77.

Division No. 71.]
AYES.
[7.36 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Albery, Irving James
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chapman, Sir S.
Fielden, E. B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Finburgh, S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Forrest, W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Clarry, Reginald George
Fraser, Captain Ian


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cope, Major William
Goff, Sir Park


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Couper, J. B.
Gower, Sir Robert


Boothby, R. J. G.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Grant, Sir J. A.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Brittain, Sir Harry
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gretton, Colonel Rt, Hon. John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Grotrlan, H. Brent


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Burman, J. B.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dixey, A. C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hanbury, C.


Campbell, E. T.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Cassels, J. D.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Harland, A.


Hartington, Marquess of
Macquisten, F. A.
Smithers, Waldron


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
macRobert, Alexander M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Haslam, Henry C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden.E)


Hawke, John Anthony
Malone, Major P. B.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley}
Margesson, Capt. D.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.
Meller, R. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. H.
Templeton, W. p.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Holland, sir Arthur
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Thomson, F. c (Aberdeen, South)


Holt, Captain H. P.
Neville, R. J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tinne, J. A.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Vaaghan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Owen, Major G.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Huntingfield, Lord
Penny, Frederick George
Watts, Dr. T.


Hurd, Percy A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wells, S. R.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Pilcber, G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wilson, R. R. (Statford, Lichfield)


Jacob, A. E.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Radford, E, A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Ean


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wise, Sir Fredric


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Withers, John James


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Remer, J. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lamb, J. Q.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Womersley, W. J.


Lister, Cunliffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ruggles-Brise. Major E. A.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Salmon, Major I.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lougher, Lewis
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wragg, Herbert


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sancton, Lord



McDonnell, Colonel Hon Angus
Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macintyre, Ian
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Colonel Gibbs and Captain Lord


McLean, Major A.
Skelton, A. N.
Stanley.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Smith. R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro'}
Hardie, George D.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Smillie, Robert


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bondfield, Margaret
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan. G.
Lawson, John James
Taylor, R. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lee, F.
Tinker. John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Lindley, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cluse, W. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Connolly, M.
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dalton, Hugh
Morris, R. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Day, Colonel Harry
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Duncan, C.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Dunnico, H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Wright, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M-
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)



Gardner, J. P.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gillett, George M.
Scurr, John
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes


Gosling, Harry
Sexton, James



Question put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CLASS VII.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £57,410, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."—[Note: £28,700 has been voted on account."]

Captain KING: In the unavoidable and most regrettable absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs (Captain Hacking) I have been entrusted with the duty of introducing these Estimates. Hon. Members will realise that it is no light task to attempt to master the mass of detail in the Office of Works Estimates at very short notice, and I trust the Committee will extend to me its indulgence in my effort. I suppose that in this Vote for the Houses of Parliament Buildings the principal point of interest will be the sum of £20,000 which is asked for in respect of the restoration of the stonework of this building. We all realise that a great deal of decay has been taking place for years, even before the building was actually completed. Even before 1852, decay was already beginning to show. The decay has been increasing in amount, until in recent years the matter has become very serious. In 1920, a complete examination of the outside buildings was undertaken and within recent years a large amount of money has been spent in trying to preserve the stonework. For many years, even from the time of Sir Charles Barry himself, efforts have been made to find some suitable preservative which would preserve the stone which is at the present time crumbling. But so far no efficient preservative has been found. An expert Committee was appointed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research with the idea of finding some method of preserving the stonework.
Failing any efficient method of preservation, it became necessary to resort to the method of hand-picking, to remove those loose fragments of stone which were a danger to the rest of the building and to passers-by. We have All got familiar with the view of this building with many of its ornamental pinnacles
and cupolas removed. So far, it has been a question merely of removing broken fragments. In recent years, no less than £37,000 has been expended in merely removing unsafe fragments of stone. It is not really economical to continue that method. The removal of the stone does not help to preserve the building. It is only for the purpose of safety, and, therefore, it has been decided that it is necessary to undertake more complete steps for the restoration of the building. In coming to the question of restoration, the first point is to decide on a suitable stone. We know that great care was taken when these Houses of Parliament were built to select what they thought was a suitable stone. Their selection has not proved suitable, and it is for that reason we have now to undertake the restoration. In carrying out any future work we want to be quite sure that a suitable type of stone is chosen.
I hope most Members have taken the opportunity to read the Command Paper issued last year on the defective condition of the stone work of the Houses of Parliament. Those who have taken that trouble, I think, will have been amply repaid, because it is an extremely interesting document, and very fully explains a subject upon which I am only going to touch very lightly. In this Paper it is laid down that the factors which have to be considered when making a selection of stone are: first, colour. Members will appreciate that when we are restoring a building of that character we must be careful to see that we have a stone the colour of which will synchronise with the existing stonework. For instance, you could not have some dead-white stone put against the yellow tinge of the stone of the existing building. The second point is the texture of the stone, and also its durability. Its durability, of course, is of the greatest importance, if future generations are not to be put to the same expense to which we are being subjected at the present time. Another point that has to be considered is the adaptability of the stone for Gothic detail. We know there is a great deal of detail in the ornamentation of this building, and we must have a stone that will be suitable for that Gothic detail. The final point is that we must use a stone of which we can secure ample supplies.
After taking expert advice in various quarters, I might mention that my Noble
Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works has had the advantage of the expert-advice of Mr. J. Allen Howe, Assistant Director of the Geological Survey, and also of Sir Robert Robertson, the Chief Government Chemist, and other experts. It is now proposed that the repairs should be carried out to this building with what is known as Stancliffe stone. I will not go into the chemical formation of this stone. Members who have read the book will have found the details there. This stone has been selected as being a hard-wearing stone suitable for the purpose. I believe there will be criticism during the Debate as to the choice of this stone, and I will defer any further details with regard to it until I have an opportunity of replying to any points that are raised.
In concluding these remarks, I would only remind the Committee that though £20,000 is asked for in the Estimates for this year, the total cost of the restoration is estimated to amount to £1,062,000 odd, to be expended over a period of some 12 to 15 years. Of course, it will be noted that in this year's Estimates, as in previous year it Estimates, there is also a sum of £5,000 for hand-picking. The method of hand-picking will, of course, have to be continued while the restoration takes place, but as the restoration nears completion the hand-picking will be reduced, and therefore there will be a saving on the usual outlay necessary at the present time. Having mentioned what I think are the more important details of this Vote, I commend the Vote to the Committee, and will be pleased to answer any questions as to details that may be raised during the Debate

Mr. GARDNER: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I am disappointed with the statement that has come from the Government Bench with regard to this very important question. At first sight, it would appear as if it were a routine matter which ought to be passed without any question. Being a believer in Parliamentary government, and wishing to have a Parliament House, I think it ought to be one that should last, and I have no desire to oppose the voting of money for a great building. I am one of those who recognise that this House of Parliament
is a great building; in fact, of its kind, the greatest building in the world, and it is recognised by Continental and American artists as being a great building, a class of work traditional to our people, and only to be found in this country. For that reason, it is of the greatest importance that if its preservation is to be undertaken, it should be undertaken in a proper manner. If we are agreed upon that, it will be appropriate to examine the question from the standpoint of those who claim to have some knowledge of what is required. In the first place, the Memoranda which have been prepared in a painstaking way, and give a considerable amount of information, although in some details limited, form, generally speaking, a very important document, and one which every Member of Parliament should peruse before he undertakes to commit himself to any expenditure of money with regard to the scheme.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that the Government had selected some experts, and he gave the names of several gentlemen as pre-eminent in this subject. Governments in the past did the same thing. The Government, however, have not taken the trouble which a Government ought to do on any big question involving a large expenditure of money. The Government should consult every professional or other interest which may be involved in a scheme of this kind. To my amazement, when I read the Memoranda I found that no mention had been made of the Institute of Architects, which, surely, ought to be consulted on a question like this. The builders of the country have not been consulted, as I think they ought, and the workers of the country, who have to carry out the work, should be consulted as well. The Government have not attempted to do that. I suggest it ought to be their first duty, and I hope, as a result of this discussion to-night, they will change their point of view, and take appropriate steps to carry out this suggestion. When it comes to a question of this kind, the great experience of all the people engaged in the industry ought to be collected before any steps are taken. That has not been done. On the contrary, the Government have gone upon the same basis as the original Commissioners appointed by the Crown. They have gone upon chemical, geological
and laboratory tests. The results of such tests made generations ago are to be seen on the outside of this House to-day. Common sense tells us that practical experience is far better than theoretical experience. I am one who bows down to the great work of people engaged in research, and I am always glad to learn from the results they have achieved; but in this case, having had the previous knowledge of laboratory tests, we are now recommended stone which, later on, I shall show has not stood the test of reliability.
The Memoranda relate that in 1861, which was not many years after the commencement of the work, a Select Comraittees was appointed and discovered that decay was rampant. What was more remarkable, they discovered that the decay in the fabric was more apparent in the plain than in the ornamental part. There are no proofs in the Memoranda or in any statement made anywhere that any change has taken place in the method of selecting stone sufficient to justify a departure from experience. If there has been, at any rate it has not been demonstrated either by the Crown advisers or by the Memoranda. Another point is that if the building wants patching, the assumption is that the remaining stones are sound. If that be so, and His Majesty's advisers are satisfied, then the building ought to be repaired with the same kind of stone. If they are not prepared to repair it with the same kind of stone, they must have grave doubts about the present stone, and if they have any doubts at all they ought to sweep it aside. I suggest that it should be refaced with whatever stone is used.
8.0 p.m.
It is very strange indeed to me His Majesty's advisers should recommend a stone of superior quality to repair a stone of inferior quality. It seems obvious that the ultimate outcome will be that you will have some sound stone in the building and some unsound stones. I could mention many Cathedrals where that expedient has been tried with disastrous results. It never has succeeded and it never can succeed. I am advised by people who are indisputably capable that the scheme recommended by the Government cannot be carried out upon the estimate of £1,000,000 odd. The memorandum very
wisely does not give any indication as to where this stone is being used and where its durability is being proved. It is remarkable that not a single instance has been given of this stone being used in London nor of the years in which it has been in any building. It is true that St. George's Hall, Liverpool, is mentioned. That hall is reputed to have been up for 80 years, and a very sombre building it is. It looks like black ink, and I hope the House will not assent to a building of that kind disgracing the banks of the Thames. I have had occasion to learn that the Office of Works have considered the Land Registry Office in Lincoln's Inn Fields as a suitable example of the use of this material, but the first portion of that building is only 25 years old, and the second portion is only 12 years old, and those who have examined it, and are capable of forming a judgment, are of opinion that decay is setting in now and is likely to continue. Surely it is not suggested that Parliament is to be asked to conduct an experiment in a matter involving £1,000,000, upon laboratory tests to utilise material which has only proved itself in London in one Government building for 25 years. Everything suggests that the Government should look round carefully and consult those who have knowledge of the subject before they go ahead with the scheme.
Now I come to another aspect of the question, which from the Parliamentary point of view is more important even than the preservation of the building; that is the question of the men who will be called upon to work the Stancliffe stone. The name of the material is Darley Dale, and Stancliffe is the name of the quarry. It is amazing to me that, in the memorandum, the question of the health of the operatives has never been mentioned. It could not have been without the knowledge of His Majesty's advisers that that danger existed, because the Office of Works, when it has work to do on that kind of material, pays the men an extra sum per hour because of the danger of working it. That ought to have been taken into consideration and reported accordingly. That has not been done, and that is why some of us are greatly concerned about the proposed use of this stone. I will quote, as an illustration, something which is of importance and which has been written by a man who
is prominent in his own Department, Sir Thomas Legge, who was till lately the senior Medical Inspector of Factories. This officer, during the whole of his Civil Service career, was engaged in reporting to the Government on work of this kind. He says:
In Great Britain the quarrying and dressing of sandstone, whether in Derbyshire, Yorkshire, or round Edinburgh—Edinburgh is largely built of freestone—must have cost a holocaust of lives. The geology of Derbyshire, indeed, has been marked out simply by the death-rate from phthisis—high on the sandstone areas, low on the limestone. This point is convincingly summarised by the Registrar-General's figures, showing that, as compared with 142 of the average male population between 25 and 60 years of age who die of phthisis, there die 127 granite dressers, 129 limestone dressers, and 415 sandstone masons.
These figures are appalling enough, and for the Government to embark upon a scheme of this kind without first taking them into consideration is, to say the least of it, negligent. Then he goes on to say:
The ultimate effects of silicosis are even slower to show themselves than in the case of lead poisoning. Years invariably elapse before the shortness of breath—the result of the slow but sure encroachment on the air spaces—which is the cardinal symptom, makes work difficult, and, to add to the trouble, the tubercle bacillus is as likely as not to find a nidus in the weakened lung. At present, unfortunately, methods of removing the dust at the point of production in chipping and dressing by hand have failed, although invention may yet find a way. Wetting the stone is a very partial success.
I am very much interested in the latter part of the statement, because it is often suggested that the masons have only to wet the stone and their death-rate would be lowered. But those who understand the work know that the man who wets the stone hinders his output, and, for economic reasons, he has to take a risk of disease and to get on with the job. I have some other figures which are in many ways illustrative. Unfortunately the Government cannot provide us with any figures, except those which are out of date, and the figures I am to give are those which were last compiled. In the areas where this stone comes from, the medical officer of the Derbyshire County Council conducted an inquiry. Taking the death rate per thousand in the years from 1901 to 1910, the rate among 124
persons, grit stone workers, was 13.7 from phthisis. Out of 426 stone workers, some in limestone, in the two Matlocks and the two Darleys, the death-rate was seven per thousand. Taking the gritstone and limestone workers generally, the rate was five per thousand. Among the persons employed in and about limestone quarries and works, the rate was 1.71 per thousand. Among limestone workers themselves, it was 1.52 per thousand. Among persons employed in and about coal mines in the same district, the rate was 68 per thousand, and among persons employed in agriculture 66 per thousand. The standard phthisis death-rate was 77 per thousand. Therefore, the workers engaged on this sandstone had to take the greater risk of a death-rate of 13.7 per thousand, as against the average phthisis death-rate of 77 per thousand.
If you compare figures compiled for the same years in respect; of the workers in Portland stone, you will find that the death-rate among the masons was 1.4 per thousand, among the labourers, 1.9, and, for all other trades, 1.1 per thousand. I could quote more if I cared, but I do not want to weary the House. Dr. Brown the medical officer who worked for the Home Office and who, I believe, still does so, gave a report in 1922 to the Home Office. He said that the development of this disease is remarkable. It grows in slow stages, and the men who are suffering from it appear to be the same, but ultimately they die of it and die very quickly. I hope the Government will take some steps to give us the death-rate in this connection. If the Minister of Health cares to find it he could send a medical officer to the local districts, and get the figures up to date. I want to give all the advantage that the National Health Insurance Act may confer upon the victims, because this disease has been in operation during the interval after the period relating to the figures which I have quoted. If you are to introduce a stone of this kind into London, you will raise the maximum amount of disease among the men who will have to work it, or, alternatively, you will bring men from the area that the stone comes from, and you will have to send them back to their own districts and compensate them. It may be suggested that special tools, such as the pneumatic tool, could be used; but the operatives in London districts are
opposed to this tool, and rightly so, because its only utility is to expedite the work, and it aggravates the disease.
The only thing the Government have succeeded in demonstrating is that we have a very fine colour scheme. The Houses of Parliament are beautifully coloured, but it is remarkable that the stone that was used was not the stone that was originally chosen. If you are to have a beautiful colour in stone, you are bound to have oxide, and, if you have oxide, you are bound to have decay. The proper thing to do is to recognise the results of experience. If you do so, you are bound to recognise that Wren when he started the building of St. Paul's had insight when he chose Portland stone. St. Paul's was built of Portland stone, and it has been standing for 300 years. Greenwich Hospital, which has been standing for nearly the same time; the Monument which commemorates the Great Fire; and every Government building in Whitehall, has been erected in Portland stone. Yet, in spite of that experience, it is suggested that we should take a stone which will cost more, which will cost the ill-health of the operatives and which will not add to the dignity nor to the beauty of the building. Darley Dale stone will be best recognised by people who travel in the North, where it is used for railway bridges, and, if they think the tint of it is beautiful, they are welcome to do so. Portland is proving its durability, and it is being used in place of sandstone even in the sandstone areas. In Liverpool, Manchester, and other places they are adopting this material, and architects are finding it much better for their work. All the theory in the world may be beautiful, but practical experience is outstanding.
The other thing you have to take into consideration is the completion of the work. It is a wise procedure and one to be commended, that when the Government undertakes a large expenditure like this it should be spread over a long period of years so as not to create a high peak of employment and consequent unemployment afterwards. If Portland stone is utilised you would stablise trade, and the work could he completed in a shorter time, even the patching process. Rut the most important thing is that the Government should take first into con-
sideration the health of the workers. The Government has no right, with the statistics and knowledge already is their possession of the terrible death-rate among the people concerned, to utilise a material which is known to be dangerous and reject a material which causes no risk to the persons employed. The stone that is selected has not been demonstrated, either here or in the North of England, to possess the durability required. Anyone who visits Manchester or Liverpool can look at the cornices and caps which are dropping off the buildings; the whole thing is deplorable.
The Government have been badly advised, and if we are going to have a costly experiment then I think it should be conducted not at the expense of the public but at the expense of the people who create the disease. The experience of people in the building industry and architects should be utilised to the full. The best brains of the architects and builders, and of all the workmen, should be called in before the Government spends any money. I am certain that as a result you will be able to find better means and bettor material. There is no scarcity of the material I suggest. Unfortunately, there is no alternative to these two stones. The advice I get is that it lies between these two stones; whether that is true or not can be inquired into. If you do this you might come to a point of view which may not be acceptable to the Government. I have a great admiration for the Civil Service. I think the British Civil Service is the most wonderful institution in the world. I believe as a Socialist that we ought to have State control everywhere, but at the same time I recognise that there are some questions which, during the present transition stage from the system we know to the system we hope to know, prevents a Government Department always getting the best advice, and in this ease I think they should go outside the Department for advice.
I want to say this one thing more, because of a remark I overheard in the Lobby yesterday. I have no interest in the Portland quarries. I know nothing of the interests connected with the building trade, and I have nothing personally to gain in the matter. I am glad to say also that those who have co-operated with me in this question have nothing to
gain at all; either builders or masons. It will not matter to them what material is used. There is nothing going into their pockets which would not go in the ordinary way. I maintain that any scheme which is adopted should be referred to the Royal Institute of British Architects; that an architect of eminence, sympathetic to the original design of the buildings, should be appointed, that the builders, masons and workers, both masters and men, should be consulted; that no stone, however durable it may be, which is acknowledged to be dangerous to the workers should be used, and that when patching is to be the process a stone best fitted to the London atmosphere should be used.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken into the question as to whether or not his stone is injurious to the health of the workers concerned. I am concerned to repudiate the suggestion he seems to make that the durability of the stone suggested is not absolutely above reproach. He quoted in support of his contention St. George's Hall, Liverpool, and said that it is a sombre building. I suggest respectfully that it is not the fault of the stone but of the Port of Liverpool. The stone has no protection against the smoke of Liverpool. You might almost as well reproach the bricks at the back of a fireplace for being black. The proposed stone is of a warm and rich colour, and will harmonise admirably with the rest of the building, and its durability is absolutely above reproach. It is still acknowledged that what Manchester thinks to-day, London will think to-morrow, and I hope North Hammersmith will think next week. I should like to inform the hon. Member of the immense number of buildings which have been built in Manchester of this stone. I will not inflict the whole list on the Committee. They include the Royal Infirmary, the Royal Exchange, the Assize Courts, a large number of hotels and practically every bank, as well as a majority of the large buildings in Liverpool, including St. George's Hall which has been standing for 80 years and which shows no sign whatever of decay. Another important building is King Edward's Grammar School and the muni-
cipal buildings and Art Gallery at Birmingham which has been up since 1833 and shows no signs whatever of decay.
The statement that the stone is liable to decay is absolutely without foundation, and its adoption to an increasing extent in the smoky damp districts of the North of England is because it has been found to resist the climatie conditions better than any other stone. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member into the question of the health of the workers in this stone, but I should like to say that I think he has slightly exaggerated the risk to the workers. My interest in the stone is that it comes from the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and if the story he has told of the nature of the stone is correct, I should find my constituents deploring the fact that they are condemned to death in a few years. But I find, however, that there is widespread satisfaction. not so much at the prospect that they are to be assured of employment for some years to come—the Stansfield quarries have been doing extremely well for some time—but because they are proud of their stone and the fact that the House of Commons is going to come to their quarry for its stone.

Mr. GARDNER: Can the Noble Lord give us some examples of London buildings?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I cannot give many example;- in London, though there are a few. London thinks invariably some way bound Lancashire and Yorkshire. I have here two examples. The base of the Crystal Palace and the base and steps of the Albert Memorial are made of this stone, and there are many other jobs which have been done later. As the hon. Member has asked me a question, I way as well tell him that the stone was used locally and in the North of England when the quarry was first developed. Then there was a period when the quarry was not worked at all. The quarry was then bought by the late Sir Joseph Whitworth, but it was not until his death that it was brought into use again. That is the reason why there are no recent buildings in London constructed of this stone.

Mr. HARDIE: I doubt whether the interest of hon. Members in what they call their own building is deep enough for them to understand the tragedy that we are now witnessing. I should have
thought that a question so grave as this, affecting an edifice such as this is, would have resulted in each bench being crowded. I am sorry for the reason of the absence of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, though the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the matter has done very well, indeed. Had his speech been longer perhaps some of the questions now being put would not have been put. Having read all the literature that has been produced on the subject, including the booklet that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has before him, I wish to know whether, since the publication of these things, there has been any further consideration. Is there any further Report or any Report from the Fine Arts Commission? I understood from what took place over a year ago, when we went over the roof and the building generally, that the final decision would rest with the Fine Arts Commission. Has there been any change in regard to the methods to be adopted? Are there to be any changes in the architectural features of the building? Is there any truth in statements in papers like the "Times" that certain turrets are to be taken down and replaced by something lighter or different? The recommendations that are made in that relation are not definite enough for anyone to accept them. I want to know also in what form the repair system is conceived? Is it to be general for the whole of the building, or is it to apply only to the facade facing the river and that on the opposite side facing the street and that part facing Bridge Street? If it is to be confined to these, is there to be any method adopted with regard to the internal uncovered corridors? To me, the design of the House always appears to be a number of corridors joined up by two small things called houses.
It should be made quite clear that when we are discussing stone we are discussing two things, so far as this building is concerned. When we are discussing the stone of this building we are discussing a latent defect. That is number one. Number two is the attack of the atmosphere upon the stone. There is a difficulty to be faced. When you read the newspapers published during the time that the stone was being chosen for these buildings you realise the huge interest that was then taken
in the subject. I say that because of the leading articles and the letters in the Press. We are now discussing an expenditure of £1,200,000. The original Estimate for this building was £800,000. It was to have been built in six years, but the work lasted 20 years and cost £2,000,000. The choice of the stone used was made after what is described in all the papers of that period as protracted examination. The reason given for not using Portland stone was that the pillars at Hyde Park were showing signs of decay. All that great care and investigation were given to the subject, and yet we are discussing this tragedy to-night. Have we any greater guarantee in the recommendations now made than the people had when this building was about to be built?
I have read with interest that part of the booklet which relates to artificial stone, and while we can say that there have not been many big buildings built of artificial stone and the time has not been sufficient to test the stone's durability, yet we ought to have had some report upon the resistance to the atmosphere of artificial stone. There are many such stones made. We might have some information in regard to that because to-day is the day of the chemical scientist and we might have had the results of tests that had been carried out. You could ascertain in a laboratory the effect of 50 or 100 years' concentration of atmospheric effects on artificial stone. Where defects in stone are lateral and at the angles. they can be seen, but if they are internal we might set about the repair of the top of one of these walls and go on spending money in putting up scaffolds to carry out the repair, and then in a month or two we discover that an unanticipated defect has shown itself.
In connection with the' expenditure of this sum of £1,200,000, has it been arranged to have every stone tapped by an experienced man who is capable of telling whether there is a defect in the stone or not? That is a most essential thing. It is no use starting to do repairs at the top, if there are latent defects underneath. I do not care what you expend, if you are going to do the thing at all, let it be done properly. We ought to start at the bottom and make a thorough examination. You can get experienced men to conduct such an examination. There are people who
work in minerals and who, by tapping a stone, can give you the thickness of it up to 4 feet. There is no difficulty about getting this work done. I suggest, seriously, that every inch of the building should be gone over in this way to ensure that we shall not spend money uselessly. I know that it will be a tedious process, but it is the only way to safeguard against latent defects which may afterwards develop. A suggestion has been made about re-facing the building. I do not dispute that suggestion, but before refacing the building we ought to know whether these walls, carrying the weight which is upon them, have not latent defects which may be such as to burst the facing and develop faults which might bring about more serious disaster. I can see nothing for it but a thorough examination of every foot of the building.
Coming to the question of cost, I think it is unfair to ask anyone, in the circumstances I have just described, to make an estimate. I do not think it can be done. I have been watching closely, since I was over the roof and since the dismantling of the turrets began, the-manner in which the work is being-carried out. The up-and-down form of scaffolding which is in use is very expensive, and I should like to know if a suggestion which I made previously is likely to be carried out. I suggested that, instead of having the continuous cost of pole-and-tie scaffolding, instead of the continuous work of putting up and taking clown scaffolding, we should have a moveable trestle on the Terrace capable of providing room for 10 men to work. Such an arrangement could be quite artistic and it need not interfere with the movements of those who use the Terrace. I make that as a practical suggestion. With such a trestle you could reach any part of the wall from the base to the top; you could always do so in safety, and it could be so constructed as to prevent accidents being caused by falling stones. I cannot repeat too often that we must face this matter not on the basis of saving money but on the basis that the thing must be done right and that, if we do not do it right, we are only wasting such money as we spend upon it.
We are here, I presume, discussing only that part of the Estimate which deals with the stonework, but I do not think I shall be out of order in saying that there are many other things in connection with the building which require to be altered and which could be altered cheaply while the scaffolding is there. Take, for instance, the question of the ventilation of this House. We take in the air at the lowest level at which we can get it,, namely, on the Terrace. That seems absurd. Every heavy gas is attracted by the surface of the river, and in the hot summer weather, during an all-night sitting, it is always easy to know when a barge passes by carrying something which is not good for the olfactory nerves. I suggest that in this scheme, which I think we may call a reconstruction scheme, consideration should be given to the inlet of air to the House. I know there are a great many people outside who would like to have poison gas put in, and that might not be a bad thing for the nation, but I am not discussing that point. It seems to me there are various methods which could be very cheaply adopted in the building as it is at present constructed to bring the air in at such a level as would render it free from these contaminations. I hope that this reconstruction will include not only the question of the air supply, but will also deal with a great many other features in the arrangements about the House which require attention. Before concluding,, I wish to refer to the condition of many of the gargoyles which are not visible from the front or the Terrace but are hidden in behind. These, I think, ought to be removed. There is one in which the defect is horizontal and the head of that gargoyle can he lifted off in the same way as a stranger to the House would remove his hat at the request of the Serjeant-at-Arms. Other gargoyles may develop similar defects, and if the head of one of them fell off and struck a Noble Member of the other place as he was going into his work it would be a serious matter. On the question of hand-picking, it is suggested that this will become less and less as time goes on. I do not think so, and the Department ought to ask for more money with which to continue it. Hand-picking is not going to diminish in the ratio
suggested. I hope the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Estimate will be able to give answers to the various points which have been raised and will endeavour to interest the Department concerned in the suggestions which I have made.

Sir WILLIAM BULL: I wish to say a few words on this subject, partly in criticism of my colleague the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Gardner), who suggested the use of Portland stone. I admire Portland stone as much as anything, but this stone was very carefully considered by Sir Charles Barry, who came to the conclusion that it would be much too white for the purpose of his design, and he turned it down. In my opinion, Portland stone has another drawback, namely, that the magnificent detail of the carving essential to this building is such that it would be very difficult to work in Portland stone. When I was a boy I recollect hearing that if you poured 10,000 gallons of vinegar over this building, the whole building would be turned into Epsom salts, which would supply the Empire with Epsom salts for 10,000 years. I do not know whether that is true or not, but the stone being magnesian limestone, I believe that would be the effect. I mention this because the Staneliffe stone is a remarkable stone for withstanding the atmosphere. In the Midlands it is a favourite stone for making the stone troughs, which are cut out of a solid block, for the purpose of holding and storing sulphuric acid, and that is a fairly good answer to the effect of the acids in the air here. The present architect has taken an enormous amount of trouble in investigating this question, and has travelled in order to discover which is really the best stone for the purpose under present conditions. I do not think it is possible in these days to consider refacing the whole front of the building, and, as the last speaker said, it has other dangers, namely, that if you attempted an entire refacing of the whole of it, it might show latent defects, which would be very serious indeed. On the whole, I want to support the Government with regard to this Staneliffe stone. I am one of the informal Committee which considered the subject, and I support the recommendations of the Committee with regard to the Staneliffe stone, as I do not think there is any other stone which
will fit the circumstances of the case so well. It is amazing to think that the original builders, instead of putting in proper standards to go down into the pinnacles, put in iron, with the result that, in the course of time, the iron got wet and rusted. The iron has been responsible for splitting a great deal of the stone, and that, I hope, is something which will not be repeated. I hope we shall have all those standards of proper stone which will not be liable to split. Considering all the circumstances of the case, I think the Government have come to a wise conclusion in recommending Stancliffe stone.

Mr. VIANT: I have been very interested in reading the recommendations of the Committee, the more so because I, with others, had the privilege of going over the roof and the building generally, and I might say that I am not in entire agreement with the right hon. Member for South Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull) on the question of our having to reface the whole of the building. In reading the Memoranda, I note that the advisers of the Government have gone to great lengths in considering the question of colour. Personally, I do not think that needs all the attention that has been given to it, for we read that within nine years after the stone had been, put in place, they found out that a great proportion of it was already decaying, but I believe that defects in the stone were discovered even during the course of the construction of the building. They anticipate that 15 years will be necessary for repairing the building, and it has been admitted by the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Vote that hand-picking has to be continued at the same time. I am of the opinion that during those 15 years we shall find that other defects will have revealed themselves, and that where the scaffolding has been taken down we shall have to put it up again to repair the stone.
I do not think we ought to consider this matter lightly. The advisers have a very responsible duty to perform, and this House ought to be more full than it is, and be giving far more attention to this matter, because it would be preferable that the anticipated repairs should continue for 20 or 25 years and that the work should be thoroughly done. I do not think we ought to be concerned with colour at all, because I
feel convinced, in my own mind, that the whole of the face of the walls will have to be dealt with, and I think we ought to make provision for dealing with it in a very thorough manner. The recommendations do not deal with the position as thoroughly as I think they should. I am not going to argue the merits of the different stones, but I do not think we ought to be so much concerned about the colour, providing we get a stone which is durable, and which will enable us to hand these buildings down to the generations that are to come.
Another point that I want to make is this, that when we are judging the stone, in addition to taking into consideration its durability, I think it will be expected of us that we should give some consideration to the effects of the use of the stone upon the operatives. The hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Gardner) quoted the death rate that results from the use of the Stancliffe stone, and it was very alarming, and I think the advisers of the Department would be very well advised to reconsider the position and to take these death rate figures into consideration before embarking upon the scheme. A definite decision ought not to be taken, in my view, until more advice has been sought, and I would strongly support the recommendations of the hon. Member for North Hammersmith to the effect that advice should be sought from a wider field than has been the case up to the present. In view of those facts, I hope the Debate will be continued in such a way that we shall recognise the importance of being prepared to grant whatever money is necessary, and of extending it for a longer period in order that the money may be obtained. I trust we shall conduct the whole business in such a way that we shall really give value for money and feel secure that we have done the best possible thing for the nation.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I do not propose to follow the line of criticism which has been embarked upon by hon. Members who have spoken hitherto in the Debate. I think the majority of Members will probably feel that this is essentially a question for experts to deal with, and most of us feel that the experts should be given the freest possible hand, and that we should be prepared
to foot whatever bill may result, if only they will give us a sound House of Commons, worthy of the traditions of the past and of the work which is done in this building. As this Vote covers not only questions affecting the structure of the building, but also minor things, I would venture to draw attention to one or two matters which are rather domestic, perhaps, but none the less important as affecting the efficiency of the House. I would like to draw attention to the fact that the telephone boxes in this House—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member informed me of his intention to raise this matter. Since he expressed that intention I have given the subject anxious consideration, and I have come to the conclusion that this is primarily a matter concerning the Post Office, and should be raised on the Post Office Vote.

Sir D. NEWTON: May I suggest that it is a question of furniture, and that the supply of further telephone boxes might be dealt with?

The CHAIRMAN: A telephone box may be a piece of furniture, but it would not be worth much if the Post Office did not fix a telephone inside it, and so I think the subject must come under the Post Office Vote.

Sir D. NEWTON: May I take it that the same consideration would apply in regard to secretarial accommodation in this House, and to ' lighting?

The CHAIRMAN: That, I think, would come under the Office of Works Vote.

Sir D. NEWTON: Then I must defer raising these questions until other Votes come up for consideration.

Mr. KELLY: There is one matter I wish to raise, but in view of your ruling I do not know whether it can be done on this Vote. It is with regard to the discharge of men employed in connection with fittings, and especially with gas fittings in this House.

The CHAIRMAN: That cannot be raised on this Vote.

9.0 p.m.

Captain KING: In these days of economy it is not often the Government are urged to spend more money when they present their Estimates. I can assure the
Committee that the Office of Works, in preparing this Vote, as with all their other Votes, have exercised the most rigid economy, and that is why some of the suggestions which have been made in previous years, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir I). Newton) was desirous of bringing forward again, have not been dealt with this year. With the rigid need for economy, it was quite impossible to comply with all the wishes which have been expressed in times past for the improvement of the ventilation of the House, and other matters of that sort. With regard to the structure of the building, I realise perfectly well that there will be some opposition on behalf of the supporters of Portland stone. The two schools of thought have more or less answered each other during the Debate, but I would like to pass a comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Gardner). He regretted that the Office of Works had not consulted with members of the trade, working masons and so on, before coming to a decision. Quite recently he himself headed a deputation to my Noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works, and it is rather odd, in view of his complaint, that before taking that deputation of masons and others interested in the stone trade he should have omitted to consult in any way the masons and others who actually work in this building. I have here a letter, though I will not trouble the Committee with it, signed by the masons and other workers employed on the repair of this building, stating that they had not been consulted before that deputation was brought to the Office of Works by the hon. Member. One would think that if anyone should express an opinion, it would be the men working on the building, that they might have been consulted before action was taken.
With regard to the refacing work, it has been suggested by one hon. Member that we should either continue to use the stone which has already proved a failure for repairs, or reface the whole building. in Portland stone. I understand that the cost of refacing the building with Portland stone would amount to somewhere between £3,500,000 and £4,000,000. That is a very large sum, and, as the hon. Member for South Hammersmith has
pointed out, Portland stone is not considered to be a suitable material for this building. The most important point raised this evening and the point which has been most carefully considered by the Department, is whether the health of the men who work with this particular type of sandstone is affected. I think it is a matter in which all Members of the House will be equally interested. It has been carefully considered, but, to my mind, there are no really conclusive figures about it. Some of the figures quoted deal with the last census.
The hon. Member for North Hammersmith quoted figures from the medical officer of health in the Darley Dale neighbourhood. Sandstone quarry owners in Derby decided in 1922 to have an examination of their employes. They instructed the local medical officers of health to examine all their operatives, consisting of 291 men. Out of this number five were found to be suffering from silicosis and seven from lung diseases. Eighty-four of the men were between 40 and 49 years of age, 51 were between 50 and 59, and 21 were 60 years and over. The fact that only five were suffering from silicosis and seven from lung diseases shows that the working of that sandstone was not very injurious. All the medical officers of health reported favourably on the condition of the men they examined. The medical officer of health of the North Darley Urban District Council also supplied a statement of the death rata from phthisis in his area from the years 1909 to 1920, a period of 11 years. The figures for 1919 and 1920 are representative of the remainder. In 1919 the death rate per 1,000 from phthisis was 34; the number of deaths from phthisis was one, a female.

Mr. GARDNER: Females do not work in sandstone quarries.

Captain KING: I am pointing out that no male was included at all.

Mr. GARDNER: Yes, but those are figures for men working with that material.

Captain KING: I am giving the total figures; I am giving you the actual returns of the medical officer of health. I am comparing this with the death rate in England and Wales. In the North Darley district the death rate from
phthisis in 1919 was only 34, whereas for England and Wales it was 1.55.

Mr. GARDNER: You cannot make comparisons of that kind and you must take it in connection with the men engaged in that particular area.

Captain KING: I think it is necessary to consider the state of health in the whole of that area, I do not consider that there exists any really satisfactory statistics to prove what is being contended either one way or the other. There is no doubt that those who work sandstone do suffer to a certain extent from silicosis and this complaint is not unknown amongst those who work limestone.

Mr. GARDNER: It is also known in the Portland district.

Captain KING: I had the figures of the last census, but I do not consider they are accurate enough for our purpose to-day. I admit that silicosis exists amongst the workers of sandstone and that point has been considered by the Office of Works and the Home Office. It has been carefully considered and we intend to take every possible precaution to secure the health of those who work on this stone not only by damping the stone, but also in other ways which have been suggested. The workshops in which the men will work within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster will have roofs which can be removed and opened completely in fine weather, so that the men will be working practically in the open air. By taking all these precautions I hope that no bad effects on the health of the workmen will be experienced at all.
The hon. Member opposite is really asking the Government to set up a self-denying ordinance in the case of this particular stone. I would like to point out that on this point the Home Office has never been approached to bring in any Regulations or to regulate the use of this stone at any time. The Home Office have carried out part of their general investigation of this question, and there has been a comprehensive inquiry in regard to this disease in connection with the use of this particular stone. In each case special regard has been had to precautionary and preventive measures. Again I wish to repeat that
hitherto the Home Office have never been requested to prohibit the use of silicious material. I think it is unreasonable for the hon. Member opposite to suggest that while all other buildings and organisations in this country may still be allowed to use this particular type of sandstone that we should be denied the use of it, because it is considered to be the most serviceable stone that can be found for this building. I assure hon. Members that every precaution is going to be taken and we do not think that any injurious effects to the workmen will ensue from the use of this stone.
With regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) I may say that we are working in close touch with the Fine Arts Commission in regard to this business. The hon. Member is aware that in many quite inaccessible and invisible places there is atone worked in very intricate detail, and the Fine Arts Commission is being consulted in regard to some of these high elevations as to whether they can be modified, and, if so, in what form. I can assure hon. Members, whose natural anxiety in regard to the restoration of this building I fully recognise, that all the expert advice which is available will be consulted. It is not desired to take any false step in regard to the restoration of this building, and I feel sure that with the advice at our disposal and the plans already made that the restoration will be complete when it is carried through.

Mr. GARDNER: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that the masons employed in this building have not been consulted on this question?

Captain KING: Yes, that is so.

Mr. GARDNER: Then I will read to the Committee a letter which gives me authority for taking part in this discussion. On 28th March I received the following letter from the Divisional Secretary of the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers of Great Britain and Ireland:

"DEAR SIR,

Re: Restoration of the Houses of Parliament.

On behalf of the London Divisional Council of this union, I am instructed to solicit your support in the following matter:

As you will he aware, the Office of Works hare had under consideration the restora-
tion of those parts of the Houses of Parliament which have become decayed, and a Report has been presented suggesting the use of Darley Dale stone for the purpose. Immediately this Report came to the notice of our mason members they made an overwhelming representation through their various branches opposing the use of this stone. The Divisional Council made exhaustive inquiries in regard to the matter, during the course of which not a solitary mason could be found who favoured the use of Darley Dale stone. The Divisional Council was accordingly instructed to take all steps to raise objection to its use mainly on the ground of its detrimental effect upon the health of the workmen. The statistics which we have show a lamentable early age at death in the case of masons employed working Darley Dale stone, which is deplorable and striking when compared with the average age at death of masons employed working other stones.

In view of your practical knowledge of masonry, I am instructed to request you to assist us by opposing in the House of Commons the use of Darley Dale stone in the Restoration of the Houses of Parliament with a view to impressing upon the Office of Works the advisability of employing other stone which is not so injurious to the health of the workmen.

Thanking you for your assistance in this matter,

I am,

Yours faithfully,

S. STRANKS,

Divisional Secretary."

I may add that, after getting that letter, I made further inquiries, and found that the organisation in question consists of representatives from each branch, called the Divisional Council, and, if any mason can say that he has not been consulted, it is probably because, as happens in a great many cases, be did not attend the branch meetings and took no interest in the matter. I want to assure the Committee that I have that authority for stating that the masons oppose the use of this stone. The only other point that was dealt with is the question of health statistics. May I again say that comparisons as to diseases can only be made between the people engaged in the occupation and the general statistics, and, as far as Darley Dale stone is concerned, the figures I have quoted are the only figures available. The Government could get figures—

Captain KING: I have some, too.

Mr. GARDNER: I have been endeavouring for some weeks to get some, but
have not been able to do so. Perhaps I ought to have put down a question. Not wishing to trouble Ministers, I have tried other means, but have been unsuccessful. So far as regards the proposed use of preventive measures, I wish them every success, but I would remind the Committee of the remark I made in the earlier part of my speech, that silicosis goes on for a long time before it is discovered; it is not like lead paint. If the Government persist in using this stone, what will happen will be that the building will be completed and the men will be dead, and the preventive measures will be of no avail. I hope that the Government, in the light of the discussion that has taken place, will make further inquiries and will not rush into any hasty experiments which will be detrimental, not only to the operatives, but to the public purse.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: The hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Gardner) is, I think, mixing up the work of the mason with the work of the quarry-man, which is entirely different. There is no danger to any mason who uses stone of this description. The danger is from getting small pieces of stone into the lungs, and that only happens amongst quarry workers who are constantly quarrying the stone. In preparing the stone for building, or in using it in building, the danger is non-existent. [HON. MEMBERS:"NO!"]

Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £57,310, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £936,845, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings, in Great Britain, certain Post Offices Abroad, and for certain Expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department."—[Note: £468,400 has been voted on account.]

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Before this Vote is passed, I want to ask two or three questions. I find, on page 70 of the Vote, that it is proposed to adapt
the premises of the Royal Mint for use as a King's Warehouse, etc., and to make alterations there to provide additional accommodation for clerical staff of the Custom House. The total estimate for that work is £10,000, and the Vote required this year is £7,000. Following on that, I find that for works of a major kind in this connection, estimated to cost between £500 and £2,000, the figures are, for London, for 1927, £600, for England and Wales, £l,525, and for Scotland nil. The questions I wish to ask—

The CHAIRMAN: May I ask the hon. Member to what page of the Estimate he is referring?

Mr. BROWN: Page 70, Class 7, Vote 12. I presume that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote can say why it is required to adapt premises at the Royal Mint for use as a warehouse, and what goods are to be stored there on behalf of the Customs of the country. Secondly, I should like to know the extra amount of clerical staff which has now come into being and the growth of which necessitates this extra accommodation for the Customs Department at the Royal Mint. There are two subjects in which the electors of this country are specially interested. One is in getting rid of superfluous War Ministries, and the other is in checking new growths of new Government Departments and officials. I presume that this is due to the new tariff arrangements under the Safeguarding of Industries Act and other Acts, and I should like to have information as to the number of officials who have been appointed there, seeing that there appears to be no necessity in Scotland for them, perhaps because the Scottish people are too poor to buy these goods, or too honest to smuggle them in.

Mr. KELLY: With regard to the item on page 70 for water, light and heat, I am anxious to know why it is that the Office of Works—I take it that this comes under the Office of Works—has now decided to discharge so many of these employes and hand over to contractors the work of lighting and the repairing of lighting apparatus. I raise this question in view of the action, which I am sure cannot be quite appreciated by the Government, in discharging men who are
engaged upon that work, and discharging them when they were within three weeks of the period which would entitle them to their gratuity. This means that these men must now work for another seven years before they become entitled to a gratuity. The question I am putting is, why is this work being handed out to contractors at this time? Why are these men being discharged?

The CHAIRMAN: What is this work?

Mr. KELLY: The question of lighting and heating, on page 70, with regard to these buildings.

The CHAIRMAN: At whose expense is it to be carried out?

Captain KING: The Post Office.

Mr. KELLY: With regard to the Revenue Departments, there are two items for water, light and heat, and I understand that that work is now being handed out to contractors, when formerly it was done by those who were in the direct employ of the Office of Works. Not only is this work "being handed out, but, even if contractors are able to do it better, it is being done in a way that cannot be considered creditable to those in charge of these works. Men are being discharged within three weeks of entitlement to their gratuity, and are being told that, when they are reverted to other positions, they must wait another seven years before they will be entitled to any consideration from that Department. I hope the Minister will make some statement with regard to this change of policy in the Office of Works.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Before a reply is given, I wish to supplement the inquiries that have already been made with one or two figures. It is somewhat remarkable, in this year of difficulty, that an increased amount is required for the collection of inland Revenue, of £19,050. It is said that every picture tells a story. I think we might add to that by saying that" 'very figure tells a story, and the story that these figures tell is a very interesting one. The Chancellor of the -Exchequer seems to be engaged in expending all the money he possibly can this year in the hope that next year and in subsequent years, when he will be very much nearer an appeal to the country, he will be able to show more favourable figures. It is evident
on every hand that there has been no attempt to collect revenue because there has been no—what is colloquially called—Income Tax squeeze! at all this year, but the expenditure on the Income Tax spending Departments has gone up by no less than £19,650. That, as the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) says, is, apparently, due to the extra expenditure in the collection of the new duties under the Safeguarding of Industries Acts, but why is it necessary to spend all this money on new Income Tax services this year, when there has been no attempt to increase the amount of tax collected? I think it ought to be made quite clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is engaged in cooking this year's Budget in order to make next year's Budget a more favourable one. He is not engaged in a legitimate enterprise at all, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Member who represents the War Office, though I am sure he will have a difficult task to explain this away, will make some attempt at it before he votes this sum of money.

Captain KING: I do not propose to try to explain the policy of the Government or to give hon. Members the number of employes and officials who are employed in the Departments other than the Office of Works. I may explain to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) that the increase in buildings required by the Customs House is to meet the extra officials who have been taken on to deal with the silk and other duties imposed in the last Budget. As far as the Office of Works is concerned they merely have to provide buildings for such officials as have been taken on by the Departments themselves under the approval of the Treasury.

Mr. BROWN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give me any idea as to how many it is? Is it 404?

Captain KING: I have not by me the particular figures as to the actual increase of the staff.

Mr. BROWN: I will put a question down.

Captain KING: The Office of Works merely supplies accommodation for the staff which has been increased at the request of the Departments concerned under the sanction of the Treasury.

Mr. KELLY: May I have a reply to my question?

Captain KING: I have been making inquiries, but I cannot find any trace of the dismissals to which the hon. Member refers. If he will kindly send particulars to me, I will have inquiries made and let him know. Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £966,368, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, and Brompton Cemotery."—[Note: £543,200 has been voted on account.]

Orders of the Day — LABOUR AND HEALTH BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £380,130, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health)."—[Note; £193,100 has been voted on account.]

Orders of the Day — DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.

Resolved,
That a. sum, not exceeding £139,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings."—[Note: £70,000 has been voted on account.]

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

COMMISSIONERS OF CROWN LANDS (STAMP DDTY).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the exemption from Stamp Duty conferred by any enactment in respect of
documents made or executed by or with the Commissioners of Crown lands shall cease."—[Mr. Guinness,]

Mr. JOHNSTON: Surely the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge will explain to us exactly what is meant by this.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): This matter was so fully discussed yesterday that I had hoped the Committee understood that this was a formal stage which was necessary. The Committee will remember that some hon. Members looked with surprising suspicion on the Crown Lands Bill which, among other provisions, includes a Clause which will enable Stamp Duty to be charged in the case of any transactions otherwise liable to stamp duty but which hitherto have been exempted in the case of the Crown estates. The Crown Lands Acts, 1829, 1S45, and 1852 have provisions exempting from Stamp Duty all deeds relating to the business of the Crown Lands. There is no reason to believe that this exemption has made it in any way easier to grant leases or conveyances, and the repeal of this provision will enable a considerable revenue to be received by the State, with no disadvantage to the transaction of business by the Crown Lands Department. It was about the only provision of the Bill which appeared to meet with approval from hon. Members opposite, and that is why I did not think it necessary to trouble the House with any further explanation.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I must confess I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. He said that this was a device by which the State was to gain a certain amount of revenue. It seems to me to be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The exemption from Stamp Duties is to cease; that is to say, Stamp Duty will now be payable, but the Crown revenues will correspondingly decrease. What then is the purpose of making this bookkeeping double entry? It seems to me to add to the expense. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what advantage is to be gained and how the revenue will increase. It seems to me that only trouble will increase.

Mr. GUINNESS: The revenue will increase by the amount of the Stamp Duty. The State will lose nothing whatever.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will not the State lose a certain amount of money
which the Crown authorities pay for the stamps?

Mr. GUINNESS: No. It is not the Crown authorities who pay for the stamps; it is the purchaser or lessee who pays for the stamps. Hitherto, for no reason ex cept the provisions in the old Acts, there has been an exemption from Stamp Duty. It has not added to the price which the State receives for leases or conveyances, and we think it is time to see that this loss to the revenue is stopped.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman say in all transactions where land is sold or bought by the Crown lands authorities the Stamp Duty is paid by the other party?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, I did not say 60. I said in the case of all leases or conveyances granted by the Crown Lands Commissioners Stamp Duty is remitted from the lessee or purchaser.

Captain GARRO-JONES: And this applies to all documents?

Mr. HARDIE: Docs this mean that whatever the Stamp Duty is, the Government selling Crown lands will get the amount of the stamp?

Mr. GUINNESS: They will get the amount in the ordinary way and the Inland Revenue will also get Stamp Duty-varying with the consideration money or rent.

Mr. D. REID: I do not usually find myself in agreement with hon. Members opposite, but does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that when a man sets out to purchase land he estimates beforehand what the total cost is going to be. He says he is prepared to spend so much. If he is going to buy Crown lands, he is prepared to go a little further because he does not have to pay the tax. If he is buying from a private individual he takes the stamp into account in the price he is prepared to offer. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to get a single penny more by this.

Mr. GUINNESS: That is purely a matter of opinion. Those who are responsible for these transactions take the view that it is so little realised that this exemption exists that the purchaser does not take it into account in deciding the price he is willing to pay. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is right we shall
be no worse off in these cases, but I am assured that in the great majority of cases we shall be better off and we shall get the same price.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is not the essential point that we are going to place the Crown authorities in exactly the same position as the private seller of land?

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I think this proposal is one that ought to commend itself to the Committee. It is part of the general system that we hope to see introduced in the Crown Proceedings Bill when it comes before the House, and in other Measures to treat the Crown in the same way as a private seller. I think the sale of Crown lands should be treated in the same way as other lands. It is consonant with the whole tendency of modern legislation to treat the Crown in exactly the same way as the subject.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS COMMITTEE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I should like to draw attention to the administration of the Unemployed Grants Committee. It is a Committee of which I believe a member of the other House is the distinguished chairman and the remainder of the members are civil servants. There is grave discontent in the necessitous areas as to the administration of the grants-in-aid by the Treasury on behalf of productive works which are designed to make work for unemployed men, some of whom for seven years have been standing idle around the coasts of this land in Leith, Middlesbrough, Tyneside, and the Clyde, unable to get work at their ordinary occupation in the heavy industries, especially in shipbuilding and round the docks, because of the niggardly
view taken by the Treasury in grants-in-aid to the Unemployed Grants Committee. I should like to ask the Government for some statement whether or no in recent months there has been issued by the Treasury a Circular to the Unemployed Grants Committee that they should go slow with regard to the provision of funds for productive work. Surely the House and the Government will agree that in the best interests of the people as a whole it is wise to help on the provision of productive work and take men off the rates and the parish councils by getting them work to do so that they can retain their power of labour, and even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds it more difficult to balance his Budget it is better for industry to pay taxes than to pay heavy additional rates.
There is great discontent as to the administration of this Unemployed Grants Committee. Perhaps the Government will tell us who the members of the Committee are in addition to the noble chairman, and whether or no the Treasury have, in fact, issued a Circular cutting down the funds at the' disposal of the Committee for the provision of productive work. In my constituency there is a proposal to extend the docks, a very necessary work and one of great importance, and I understand intimations have been made to the Government that 5,000 men who have stood idle in the market place since 1920, when the slump in trade came, could be put to productive work, not merely for their own good but for the extension of trade and business, if the grants-in-aid were at the disposal of the Committee from the Treasury. I am sure the House, although it has heard a great deal about the necessitous areas, will have to hear a great deal more in the months to come, because, while there is a movement upwards in trade owing to the development of new industries in the centre, around the coasts there are great discontent and great unemployment. It is just in those districts that you get the red feeling, and the way to get rid of the red feeling is to help productive work and make the men contented and happy. I desire to have an answer from the Government as to the composition of the Committee and as to the Treasury policy with regard to the provision of work, which is' the
duty of the Committee in conjunction with local bodies, such as the Commissioners of the Docks at Leith and other ports.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Member in this matter because my own constituency put up a proposition to the same Grants Committee some two or three years ago and requested that certain grants should be made towards the extension of the docks. We who are interested in the matter were very disappointed that the request was turned down, and we made a careful calculation of the amount that was paid in unemployment pay during the period of time. In two years, the amount that was paid out would have more than covered the amount of grant that was requested. The administration of this Department has not been in the best interests of the nation as a whole because much of the money that has been granted has been given to schemes which have not produced a large amount of work. There have been schemes for work which would not bring in revenue. Consequently much of this money so spent, on work such as road work, sewage work, laying out of parks and recreation grounds did not mean employing a large number of men and did not make any appreciable difference to those on the unemployment pay roll. A scheme to extend and improve docks is of national importance because it is going to provide work not only for the present but for the future. Therefore the money would be spent to far greater advantage than in merely digging a hole and filling it up. My own constituency has had to suffer in a matter of importance. It was not a question of this Government turning it down, because the biggest disappointment I ever had in my life was when I headed a deputation from my own town, before I was a Member of the House, to the Minister of Labour in the Labour Government. [Interruption.] I did expect something from him even after his statement about rabbits out of the hat.
When I left the office I remarked to some of my colleagues who had attended that conference with me, "That gentleman's name ought to be Bernard Shaw, because the reply he gave to us reminded me of the lady in Pygmalion, who said," Not—likely."It is not that this
Government are to blame in this matter, but the Governments that have preceded them are to blame. We got nothing from the Labour Government. Therefore, we were very disappointed. I hope that before very long the whole question of these unemployment grants will be taken into consideration. Much money has been wasted. I am not going to blame the Government for having told the Committees to stay their hands, at any rate for the time being. It is better that they should do so until there has been a proper review of the whole situation, and then we can have a scheme brought forward which will mean getting the maxmum amount of employment for the money paid.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I should like to support the appeal which the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has made asking for something to be done by administrative action on behalf of the unemployed in that area. Leith is one of the districts in Scotland which has suffered most from unemployment, and to our minds it has suffered very largely as a result of the policy of the present Government. Leith depends a great deal upon Baltic trade, and has suffered very much as a result of the reduction of that trade. The question of the extension of the docks is one which has been before the public of Leith for a long time, and the need of that extension is very obvious. It is, undoubtedly, a work that would create a considerable amount of employment and would relieve a state of things which is a matter of great concern to the people of Leith and Edinburgh. If the Government are anxious, as I understand they are, to abolish Communism—[HOST. MEMBERS: "No!"]—well, we are told that they are—the}' could not do anything more effective than to endeavour to reduce the amount of unemployment in such places as Leith. I am convinced that Communists are manufactured out of the bitterness and desperation which comes when men have been out of work for years, as they have been in many cases, and have seen their wives and families suffer as a result. This, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Leith, is a work which would not only be useful now but it would be a permanent asset. It would not be money thrown away.
We on this side of the House are often accused of being very keen on the dole and in seeing that it is increased and given to people who do not work. We have never asked for the dole and we do not desire it. What we want is work for our people, and we say that it is a very foolish policy for this country to spend, as I understand it has spent since the Armistice, £380,000,000 on public relief, Poor Law and unemployment relief, nearly all paid as a result of unemployment. That money would have been very much better spent in various administrative schemes which would provide not only employment but would prevent also the demoralisation of the people which is almost inevitable in such circumstances. To me the matter for surprise is not that there has been some cases of demoralisation but that the rank and file of our workpeople have stood the strain of unemployment so well, that their calibre has been practically unaffected, and that we have had a tribute in the Blanes borough Report to the fact that their moral fibre has remained sound, as against what so many people have insinuated has been the case. The unemployed in Leith and other places have been patient and have stood their ordeal well, and it is time that the Government instead of doing less than was being done before should be doing more.
In the years after the Armistice there was a feeling that unemployment was temporary and that nothing drastic need be done to deal with it, but now it is quite obvious that for a long time to come we are going to be faced with a volume of unemployment which will be a serious menace to the country. With all the ability that is in the present Government, with all the ability that is in the Cabinet, with all the brain power which we have been told is possessed by this Government, we should be able to do something more productive, more constructive than the policy of negation which the Government are carrying on. Various suggestions have been made from this side of the House in the direction of a cure or a relief of unemployment and many of them have been very excellent suggestions. I am glad that as a result of our appeals we now have the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury listening to us. On this side of the
House we feel that the real villains of the piece in this matter are the Treasury. It is our business, naturally, to attack the heads of the various departments for misdemeanours for which they are responsible, but while we do that we have some sympathy with them because we realise that they are helpless in the grip of the right hon. Gentleman and his chief. Therefore, I am glad of the opportunity of making a personal appeal to him, both in regard to the Leith district and the other districts suffering so much from unemployment.
We suggest that the Unemployment Grants Committee at the instigation or at least with the permission of the Treasury should dispense some of their funds for constructive work, which will not only give a permanent asset, but will relieve a great deal of suffering and demoralisation. It seems to be the policy of the present Government to do nothing to interfere with the present state of things. We cannot understand a Government with so much power and so much talent allowing this to go on. Surely they do not admit that the problem of unemployment is beyond their powers to solve. The present Government seem inclined to do nothing. They are allowing even less to be done than was done two or three years ago. Unemployment is practically as bad as ever it was. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" "Yes!"] It is almost as bad, and instead of less being done, something more should be done. What we on this side of the House most protest against is the complaisant attitude of the Government and the suggestion that we are going to settle down quietly, with over 1,000,000 unemployed, and do nothing. Sometimes criticisms are made about the bitterness and the extremity of speeches made from this side. The attitude of the Government is entirely responsible for that. If the unemployed and those who speak for them are content to go on quietly month after month and year after year and to make no protest about it, hon. Members opposite will never bother and we shall have this state of things going on permanently. Therefore, it is our business, as representing those most specially affected, to call the attention of the Government to the condition of these people, and to ask that the Government should use the powers which they
undoubtedly possess, and permit the granting of funds which can be used for constructive work and to relieve the suffering and privation resulting in the bitterness which exists in the constituency to which the hon. Member specially referred, and to many others which could be spoken of with authority on this side of the House.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): The Eon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has been out of the House BO long that he has evidently forgotten one very important observance in this House, and that is, that when these questions are raised on the Adjournment, due warning should be given to the Minister.

Mr. E. BROWN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman forgive me? The Debate suddenly collapsed, and I seized, as I thought, my opportunity to do my duty to my constituents. I regret if it is thought that I have been guilty of any discourtesy, but in the ordinary way I should have given notice. My task, as I understand, is to put the case of my constituency at every chance I got. I took the first chance, and that is my apology.

Commander EYRES MONSELL: I am not accusing the hon. Member of any discourtesy, but I only regret he did not give notice so that we could have had the presence of the appropriate Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has no such excuse, and I am sorry ho has so far fallen from grace. I am not quite sure what Department is concerned, but I shall endeavour to find out, and I shall convey the remarks of the hon. Member to the appropriate Minister. I may say, in conclusion, that I am only thankful there are not more representatives of unfortunate constituencies present.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I was a little sorry the Financial Secretary to the Treasury entered the House when he did, because, judging from the appearance of the Patronage Secretary, who is always very sympathetic, and who is about the most powerful member of the Government, we were in high hopes that in the absence of the Treasury representatives we might have secured some promise of help. But the appearance of the watchdog of the Treasury seemed to affect the Patronage Secretary, with the result that we have
what amounts to a blank negative to the appeals which have been made from this side of the House—appeals even made by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) who told a somewhat fishy story.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: It is an absolutely true one.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Fishy stories always are.

Mr. JOHNSTON: All interruptions are thankfully received. The hon. Member for Grimsby, who related some experience which he had when the Labour Government was in office, left the impression on the House, though he did not say so in so many words, that the damping down of the operations of Lord St. Davids Committee was due to the malignant activities or inactivities of the Labour Government. That is a complete inaccuracy.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: My point was not about Lord St. Davids Committee, but that we got a very peremptory note from the Minister of Labour when we took a really good scheme to him to provide work for the unemployed.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I should like to hear the comments of the Minister of Labour upon the scheme. I was dealing with the further point made by the hon. Member for Grimsby that it was due to the Labour Government that the beneficent work of Lord St. Davids Committee had been damped down. That is completely inaccurate. Lord St. Davids Committee had its work damped down by the present Government. A Circular was sent out from the Treasury, and for this purpose I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary. It was the Treasury which sent out the instruction to Lord St. Davids Committee limiting their functions. As a result of that instruction, the Committee circularised every public authority in the country—the Circular was given in full in the last published report of Lord St. Davids Committee—asking them to damp down their unemployed relief work. I happen to remember a Debate which took place in this House about a fortnight or so ago, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour stood at the Treasury Box and justified a policy of
cutting dawn the work of Lord St. Davids Committee on the ground of financial cost to the State, but he never answered the points put from this side regarding the exact financial cost to the State. It is true the State expended £40,000,000, since the inception of the work of Lord St. Davids Committee. But the State had saved £32,000,000 on the unemployment dole, leaving a net loss to the State of some £8,000,000. Against that there were public utility works and works of national importance, certified by Lord St. Davids Committee to the value of £104,000,000. Certainly a large proportion was created by moneys subscribed by local authorities, but that £104,000,000 was wealth created in this country for a net expenditure of some £8,000,000, and Lord St. Davids
Committee in the last annual report show us that they have been the means of finding work of useful national importance for what amounts to over 600,000 men, fully employed for a period of one year. One of the first acts of this Government was to send an intimation to Lord St. Davids Committee asking them to damp down these relief works. They, in turn, sent out an instruction to the local authorities declaring that only from exceedingly distressed areas were they considering further projects at all.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Rouse counted; and 40 Members not being present—

The House was adjourned, at Seven Minutes after Ten of the Clock, until To-morrow.